(FYI) Upcoming Reformation Society of Indiana Conference Nov. 16-17

Image

Dear Reformation Society Friends,

We are excitedly anticipating our fall RSI conference, Solus Christus: the Supremacy of Jesus Christ on November 16-17, 2012 at Second Reformed Presbyterian Church with speakers Rev. Anthony Selvaggio and Dr. Cornel  P. Venema. This conference will shine the spotlight on the main character of redemption – it will fix your eyes on Jesus, the Author and Finisher of your faith. Our speakers are gifted in teaching on this topic of Solus Christus, so you will not want to miss these sessions. We know it will be a weekend of spiritual encouragement and fellowship, so please plan to join us!

The brochure which contains all of the important information for the Conference is posted on the Puritanboard at the link below.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/reformation-society-indiana-conference-speakers-venema-selvaggio-75674/#post968416

You may register by sending an email to Jenny Blankenship at office@secondrpc.org. Please be sure to include the names of all those in your party for whom you are registering. Payment will be made at the door the night of the conference.

We are pleased to have Reformation Heritage Books supply the materials for our bookstore this year! The bookstore will once more be open before and after all sessions, and we encourage to you avail yourself to its helpful resources.

Finally, would you help us inform your church and community of this conference? We encourage you to invite your family members and friends. Printed brochures and posters are available upon request to help spread the word. Please email Jenny with specific quantities if interested.

http://tinyurl.com/c7owuue

We hope to see you next month! In the meantime, invite your neighbors and friends and don’t forget to register at office@secondrpc.org!

Sincerely,
Pastor Richard Johnston

In the Covenant of Grace

Image

Why would anyone want to read my thoughts when they could read Herman Bavinck?  Enjoy this tidbit.  It is very, very, very good.

RMS.

The universal reality of misery evokes in all people a need for deliverance, a deliverance from above. Pagans who construe misery as basically physical know neither the essential character of sin nor the deliverance of grace. Scripture, however, sees our misery as sin, as an ethical violation of communion with God, who alone can restore it. This requires grace, which in biblical revelation assumes the form of a covenant.

This covenant begins immediately after the fall as evidenced by Adam and Eve’s shame in their nakedness, a sign of lost innocence. Guilt and shame reveal both God’s wrath and his grace, but the latter is shown especially when God seeks out Adam and Eve and interrogates them. In his punishment on the serpent and on humanity, God’s mercy triumphs over judgment as he annuls the covenant made with evil and puts enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. Now the path of glory must pass through suffering for man and woman. In the promise of Genesis 3, we find the gospel in a nutshell and, in principle, the entire history of the human race.

The word “covenant” is not found in Genesis 3, but the reality is. Modern critics judge that covenant ideas arose late in Israel’s history but need circular arguments for their case. A history of Israel is constructed by alleging that certain biblical sources are inauthentic, which history is then used to demonstrate the inauthenticity of documents that witness against it. It is better scholarship to see the latter prophets as standing on the foundation of a real covenant made with the patriarchs.

Covenant (ברית) is characterized by three factors: an oath or promise including stipulations, a curse for violation, and a cultic ceremony that represents the curse symbolically. Covenant making is a religious and social act. The covenant of grace is unilateral, indissolubly grounded in the merciful promises of the sovereign God. God cannot break his promise; he has sworn himself to uphold it. The unilateral divine origin and character attributed to the covenant in Hebrew is likely the reason why the Septuagint translates ברית by διαθηκη, or “testament,” rather than συνθηκη.

The doctrine of the covenant achieved dogmatic significance in the Christian church because the Christian religion had to understand its relation to and distinction from Judaism. Over against Gnosticism and Marcion, the church had to maintain the unity of and, over against Judaism, the distinction between the two covenants. Law and gospel, Old Testament and New Testament, are to be distinguished but never separated. During the Reformation this issue became crucial as Anabaptists and others (Arminians, Socinians) devalued the Old Testament. Key differences also arose between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. It is in the latter, beginning with Zwingli and Calvin, that the doctrine of the covenant is most fully developed, notably in the German Reformed theology of Olevianus and Ursinus, English Puritanism, and the Westminster Confession.

Among the Dutch Reformed, Cloppenburg and Cocceius made the covenant the fundamental premise and controlling principle of dogmatics as a whole. Cocceius had an eccentric view of the covenant, notably the notion of successive covenantal abrogations, which in fact undermined the key element of grace, making it uncertain. After Cocceius, a more general disparagement of the Old Testament took place among modern thinkers such as Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Schleiermacher. Judaism was then seen as no better than paganism as preparation for Christianity.

In the Reformed church and theology, covenant became a very important practical encouragement for Christian living. Here the basis of all covenants was found in the eternal counsel of God, in a covenant between the very persons of the Trinity, the pactum salutis (counsel of peace). The work of salvation is an undertaking of the one God in three persons in which all cooperate and each one performs a special task. It is the triune God—Father, Son, and Spirit—who together conceive, determine, carry out, and complete the entire work of salvation. The benefit to the believer is in knowing that the covenant of grace executed and revealed in time and history nevertheless rests on an eternal, unchanging foundation, the counsel of the triune God. The Father is the eternal Father, the Son the eternal Mediator, the Holy Spirit the eternal Paraclete.

Care must be taken in considering the execution of the pact of salvation in time and history. Though God elects Abraham and Israel as his chosen people, his salvific purpose is universal, with all peoples. In the fullness of time, humanity as a whole, Jew and Gentile, is reconciled in the one man, Jesus Christ, at the cross. After the fall, grace and judgment alike are extended to the whole human race. In the beginnings of human history, we see great blessing in remarkable longevity and the great judgment of the flood. After the flood, God makes a covenant with nature not to destroy the world with water again, reduces human life span, and spreads humanity across the world, preventing humans from reaching heaven itself with their ambition. Despite letting the Gentiles walk in their own ways, God providentially grants them significant cultural and social development. He did not leave them without witnesses to himself through the works of his hands. In this way God is present to all people, and they are in some sense “prepared” for the message of salvation.

The universal scope of God’s intention for all peoples—Jew and Gentile—must never obscure the special favor of God to Israel. While Israel is drawn from the nations and there are analogies between Israel’s religious practices and those of the nations, the essential difference is that special grace is reserved for Israel and is not known among the pagans. Pagan religion is self-willed and legalistic. The covenant made with Abraham is new and comes from God alone. Through his covenant with Abraham and Israel, the Creator proves himself to also be the Re-creator and Savior. Elohim, Creator of heaven and earth, is Yahweh, the God of the covenant.

The old covenant with Israel is the necessary preparation for the new covenant in Christ. Though the covenant is one, there are two dispensations. In God’s own time, the promise of the old covenant was fulfilled in the new. The shadow and particularity of the letter became the substance, universality, and freedom of the Spirit. Nothing of the Old Testament is lost in the New, but everything is fulfilled, matured, has reached its full growth, and now, out of the temporary husk, produces the eternal core.

The covenant of grace, fulfilled in the New Testament, was and is surrounded and sustained by God’s covenant with nature, with all creatures. Unlike what Cocceius taught, the covenant of grace is not the successive abolition of the covenant of works but its fulfillment and restoration. “Grace repairs and perfects nature.” God’s demand of obedience remains as the only way to eternal life. The difference between the covenant of works and grace is that God now approaches us not in Adam but in Christ, who fulfilled all the obedience required of Adam. Christ is the second and last Adam who restores what the first Adam had corrupted; he is the head of a new humanity.

The covenant of grace is also integrally united with the counsel of peace, though it should be distinguished from it. In the counsel of peace, Christ is the guarantor and head; in the covenant of grace, he is the mediator. In this way the doctrine of the covenant maintains God’s sovereignty in the entire work of salvation. It is the Father who conceives, plans, and wills the work of salvation; it is the Son who guarantees it and effectively acquires it; it is the Spirit who implements and applies it.

At the same time, the covenant of grace also allows the rational and moral nature of human beings to come into their own. Here it differs from election, in which humans are strictly passive. The covenant of grace describes the road by which elect people attain their destiny; it is the channel by which the stream of election flows toward eternity. Christ sends his Spirit to instruct and enable his own so that they consciously and voluntarily consent to this covenant. The covenant of grace comes with the demand of faith and repentance, which may in some sense be said to be its “conditions.” Yet, this must not be misunderstood. God himself supplies what he demands; the covenant of grace is thus truly unilateral—it comes from God, who designed, defines, maintains, and implements it. It is, however, designed to become bilateral, to be consciously and voluntarily accepted by believers in the power of God. In the covenant of grace, God’s honor is not at the expense of but for the benefit of human persons by renewing the whole person and restoring personal freedom and dignity.

The covenant of grace, with Christ as the new head of humanity, reminds us of the organic unity of the church. The covenant of grace reminds us that election is about not only individual persons but also organic wholes, including families and generations. Therefore, some who remain inwardly unbelieving will for a time, in the earthly administration and dispensation of the covenant of grace, be part of the covenant people. The final judgment belongs to God alone, and in this life the church must regard such with the judgment of charity.*

*Bavinck, H., Bolt, J., & Vriend, J. (2006). Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ (193–196). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Gospel Influenced Living. Becoming the Gospel we profess.

Image

I have been greatly challenged about Loving others and being like Christ by Jeremiah Burroughs. He has stretched my thinking greatly concerning my conduct and attitude towards others. I pray my soul is not just gaining knowledge but that it will actually spill forth the truths and life of the Gospel of Christ by His Spirit.

Yea, and when you are reconciled to your brother, be so reconciled as to be firm in your reconciliation. Not as some; there is a peace made between them, but how? So as they are ready to take advantage against one another upon any miscarriage afterwards. God does not do this with you. The Gospel does not hold for such a peace as this, that God shall be at peace with you for the moment, but look to yourselves afterwards; as though God will take all advantages against you as He can. If there had been such a peace made between God and you as that, you would have been in hell long before this time. And therefore, let your peace be a firm, settled, and constant peace.
p.95

Gospel Conversations

What’s that but as Christ Himself said, “Be ye merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful.” Oh, have a merciful heart one towards another; look with a merciful eye upon those who are in great misery! This is that which becomes the gospel of Jesus Christ. Oh, a harsh rugged, and cruel disposition is infinitely unbecoming the gospel of Christ! To see a Christian, one who professes the gospel, who makes more profession of the knowledge of God and of the free grace of God in Christ than others, and yet, when it comes to dealing with such as are in misery he has a hard heart? Oh, a hard-hearted Christian is a monster! I say a hard-hearted Christian is a monster in the world, not to be ready to forgive others, and to do anything for others who are in misery is devilish; but to rejoice that they may have any object to show pity and compassion unto, Oh, this is that which becomes the gospel of Christ! Though they are strangers to you in that misery, yet be merciful to them, for you were strangers to God.

Yea, be merciful to your enemies, not only be willing to be at peace, but be merciful. Do not let them perish, but let the bowels of compassion even work towards them. Oh, that our hearts yearned towards all! Christ, when He came near to Jerusalem, wept over it. Oh, that the same spirit were in us as was in Jesus Christ!

p.99

Gospel Conversations
Jeremiah Burroughs

Thank God for all of those who have lived the life of the Gospel being breathed out through them by the Spirit of God. For the Gospel is the Power of God unto salvation to those who believe. We are living by the fruit of Christ’s working in and through many forefathers who shed their lives sacrificially that we might obtain an incorruptible inheritance given to us in the Person and Work of Christ.

Every Christian should make it appear that he is so set upon peace that, if the laying down of his life could procure peace, he should be willing to do it, that if we may make up breaches by standing in the gap and offering up ourselves as a sacrifice of atonement and pacification, let us thus prove ourselves to be the true followers of Christ our Lord and Master, who has left us His own example here in for our imitation. This would be an excellent thing, becoming the gospel that we profess. Yea, we should not only be willing to admit peace, but seek it. Seek it for our inferiors. Do not say that such a man has wronged me and, therefore, let him seek me. Oh no! It becomes you who make profession of the gospel of Christ not to stay until he who has wronged you comes to you, but for you who are wronged by another to seek those who have wronged you so that they would be at peace with you.

Gospel Conversation
Jeremiah Burroughs
p. 93

(Rom 1:16) For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
(Rom 1:17) For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

(Gal 2:20) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

(Php 1:27) Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ: that whether I come and see you, or else be absent, I may hear of your affairs, that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel;

Time for A Spiritual Examination. It can be hard if not harder than the physical one.

 

 

(1Pe 2:2,3)  As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. 

I am writing this for open encouragement to myself and my household so that we might examine ourselves. It is time for a spiritual examination. It can be hard if not harder than the physical one. It is a lost art that I have grown negligent of during seasons of my life and I ended up grieving the Holy Spirit of God and hurting the ones I loved. Fortunately for those around me and myself I didn’t grow totally deaf and still heard God during those times and found God to be faithful in chastising me and granting me repentance. What a loving faithful God we have.

So I thought I would just share some passages and a few short thoughts that have kept me from totally losing it and going completely off the rails a few times in life. God always remained faithful and kept telling me where I needed to be and what I needed to do even if I didn’t want to listen to him. I just didn’t want to listen sometimes. So metaphorically God patiently would make me march another time around the mountain and dessert to teach me about my rebelliousness and His goodness as he did with the Hebrews after the great Exodus from their bondage in Egypt. One scripture that always comes to my mind for examination is 2 Corinthians 13:5.  After I note that passage I will just keep on posting others and hope you are edified.  

2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! 

The Lord’s table is a great place for this examination and as a means of Grace it is quite effective to ponder upon anytime.

1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
1Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.
1Co 11:30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
1Co 11:31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

1Pe 4:17 For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

Heb 12:1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,
Heb 12:2 looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
Heb 12:3 Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted.
Heb 12:4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.
Heb 12:5 And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him.

If the Lord is not prodding your conscience about sin or encouraging you in righteousness then you should be fearful He isn’t chastising you for acting sinfully or encouraging you in your time of abiding. God loves to encourage us by His word and he is faithful to convict us when we are out of line. He leads us in paths of righteousness for His own names sake according to Psalm 23:3. If we do sense conviction, encouragement, and prodding we have much to rejoice for since God is our Father. If we are not sensing a prodding or a nagging conscience when we are acting sinful we should be greatly concerned that the Lord is not our Father and that we might be bastards concerning the faith. The reason why that is true is because the very essence of Grace is active and influential in a child of God’s life. It is divine empowering influence from the Spirit of God witnessing and encouraging us that we are the Children of God as we cry out Abba Father from our hearts.  Let’s confirm some of what I have just mentioned with what the writer of Hebrews says.

Heb 12:6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.”
Heb 12:7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
Heb 12:8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
Another thing I like to consider in light of this is the Parable of the Sower and the Seed. Jesus gives us a lot to understand here in this parable as he compares the word and soil with our intake of His Word and our lives. We all receive the word at some point of our lives. When we receive it and it bares fruit we have much to rejoice over. If we don’t bare fruit we should be alarmed. We should try to consider why it isn’t or hasn’t bore fruit if we have heard it.

Mar 4:3 “Listen! Behold, a sower went out to sow.
Mar 4:4 And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it.
Mar 4:5 Other seed fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and immediately it sprang up, since it had no depth of soil.
Mar 4:6 And when the sun rose, it was scorched, and since it had no root, it withered away.
Mar 4:7 Other seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it, and it yielded no grain.
Mar 4:8 And other seeds fell into good soil and produced grain, growing up and increasing and yielding thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.”

Mar 4:13 And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?
Mar 4:14 The sower sows the word.
Mar 4:15 And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them.
Mar 4:16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy.
Mar 4:17 And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away.
Mar 4:18 And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word,
Mar 4:19 but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.
Mar 4:20 But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.”
Mar 4:21 And he said to them, “Is a lamp brought in to be put under a basket, or under a bed, and not on a stand?
Mar 4:22 For nothing is hidden except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret except to come to light.
Mar 4:23 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Mar 4:24 And he said to them, “Pay attention to what you hear: with the measure you use, it will be measured to you, and still more will be added to you.
Mar 4:25 For to the one who has, more will be given, and from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”

The Christian life is about a reconciled relationship between God and man. Its basis is the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is about being conformed to the image of Christ which is a long and hard process. It is a joyous one because it is about being reconciled to God (solely based upon His work of earning our salvation and not our earning it) and establishing a familial relationship with Him. But the process of being conformed to Christ’s image varies from person to person and some of us experience seasons of life when we wish we had not been called by Christ at all. I know that is hard for some people to understand but it is true. Some of us have acted pretty sinful and dealt with spiritual wickedness that is life draining. As examples I will mention King David in Psalm 51 and Elijah in 1 Kings 19. But God has called us to Glory and is doing a work in us if we are called.

One important sign of that calling is that we grow in our desire for the sincere milk of the Word as it is called. As a newborn baby desires milk at feeding time a Christian should desire to hear and take in God’s word. If that desire is gone something is wrong. Either sin has choked a lot of life out of an individual and they are spiritually anemic or the individual is simply a spiritual bastard who doesn’t have God for their spiritual father. Both are situations which should invoke great fear but the later should have more urgency placed upon it for seeking a remedy since it leads to a worse consequence for not heeding the warning signs. Eternity without God will hold nothing good for that individual. Nothing good! No good at all. No relief. They only have misery to look forward to and separation from everything good and blessed. And that is for all eternity after they pass from what life they had here.

So let me make a simple recommendation at this point. Jesus said that man cannot live by bread alone. We are to live by every word that proceeded from the Mouth of God according to Him. Let’s see if we can first confess what God says about our sin and seek forgiveness. 1 John 1:8-10 was placed in His book for a reason.

1Jn 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
In response to His word above we can all probably just call out to him the same way, “Lord, Please forgive me for my neglect of you and your word and for following my sinful desires.” He knows we need this promise concerning confession and forgiveness. After that prayer of confession let us stir up that natural desire that is found in New Creatures of Christ. As newborn babes crave milk let’s drink in the milk of the word and stir up the gift that is in us. He said he knocks on the door and seeks to fellowship with His Church in Revelation 3:20. Let us open it and fan the flame of our relationship with God by opening up our Bibles and reading them. After all, He did pay an unfathomable price to ransom our lives so that we could be His children. Let’s start listening to His word. It is life giving. Faith comes by hearing and hearing comes by the Word of God. So maybe it is time to put down the Xbox controllers or things that want to choke the word out of our lives and go listen to our Father. He loves us. I know as an older struggling brother in the faith.   Randy

Kindgoms Apart “Engaging the Two Kingdoms Perspective” Pre-release….

Image

Kingdoms Apart
Engaging the Two Kingdoms Perspective

Ryan C McIlhenny

There is a portion of this book that has been made available and downloadable. I heartily recommend you download it and read it. Dr. Venema’s part is most excellent. It correctly and clearly brings David VanDrunnen’s views and interpretation of Calvin’s Two Kingdom / Natural Law Theology into question.

After you open the link just click on ‘Sample Chapters: PDF’
Then click ‘save page as’ in your browser so you can retain a copy. I will buy the book as soon as it is made available.  It is suppose to be available Oct. 2012.

There are three broad topics that are considered in Venema’s critique of Van Drunnen’s interpretation of Calvin concerning Two Kingdom’s / Natural Law.

First, Does Calvin view them (the two kingdoms) primarily in terms of two separate realms? Does he make clear identification of the spiritual kingdom with the institutional church and the natural kingdom with the remainder of human life and culture?
Second, Is there a strict correlation between the natural kingdom, which is governed by Christ as Mediator of Creation through natural law, and the spiritual kingdom, which is governed by Christ as Mediator of redemption through moral law as it is set forth in scripture?
Third, What is the relation that Calvin emphasizes between God’s purpose and work as Creator and as Redeemer. How does Calvin construe the relation between God’s purposes in creation and redemption?

http://www.prpbooks.com/Kingdoms-Apart-Engaging-the-Two-Kingdoms-Perspective-2210.html&session=7c179173247ef610b5aeab10bdcb61e1#.UGHyN9plTY0.facebook

http://www.prpbooks.com/samples/9781596384354.pdf

Please sit up and take notice of this issue.  I couldn’t agree more with the assessment of Gideon Strauss, Senior Fellow, Center for Public Justice, Washington, DC, “This is not only an academic debate. The outcome of the debate will have broad implications for Christian schools, colleges, seminaries, and churches and for Christians in the academy, politics, business, the arts, and other realms of cultural activity.”

I venture to even go a bit farther and state that this effects our understanding of Christ (Christology) and how we live our life inwardly as well as outwardly.

The download to this might be rather short lived so get it while you can.

Image

Covenant, Testament, Works, Grace, Love, and Communion.

This little portion is so good I just have to put it somewhere for others to read.  So please just bare with me and tolerate my love for things simply put down in a simple matter.  I am a bear of very little braiin as A. A. Milne’s Edward Bear.  (Winnie ther Pooh)   Please enjoy this little tidbit.

THE FAITHFUL COVENANTER

 Richard Sibbes

Works

Volume 6 pp. 3,4.

I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee. — Gen. XVII. 7.

God having framed man an understanding creature, hath made him fit to have communion and intercourse with himself; because he can by his understanding discern that there is a better good out of himself, in communion and fellowship with which, happiness consists. Other creatures wanting understanding to discern a better good out of than in themselves, their life being their good desire only the continuance of their own being, without society and fellowship with others. But man, having the knowledge of God, the Creator of heaven and earth, but especially of God the Redeemer, providing for him a second being better than his first, understandeth that his best and chiefest good dependeth more in him than in himself; and because his happiness standeth in acquaintance and fellowship with this God, which is the chief good, he desireth a communion with him, that he may partake of his good.

This communion and fellowship of man with God, was first founded on a covenant of works made with Adam in paradise. If he did obey, and did not eat of the forbidden fruit, he should have life both for himself and his posterity; the which covenant, because God would not have forgotten, he afterward renewed in the delivery of the ten commandments, requiring from man obedience to them in his own person, exactly, at all times, perpetually: promising life on the obedience, and threatening death and cursing if he continued not in everything the law required to do. But this fellowship being placed in man’s own freedom, and having so weak a foundation, he lost both himself and it, so that now by the first covenant of works, Adam and all his posterity are under a curse; for we cannot fulfil the law that requireth personal obedience, perfect obedience, and exact obedience. He that continueth not in all is cursed, Gal. iii. 10. The law then findeth us dead and killeth us. It findeth us dead before, and not only leaves us dead still, but makes us more dead.

Now after this fall, man’s happiness was to recover again his communion and fellowship with God; and therefore we must have a new covenant before we can have life and comfort. God must enter into new conditions with us before we can have any communion with him.

God therefore, loving man, doth after the breach of the first agreement and covenant, when Adam had lost himself by his sin, and was in a most miserable plight as ever creature was in the world, falling from so great a happiness into wondrous misery; he raised him up and comforted him by establishing a second, a new and better covenant, laying the foundation of it in the blessed seed of the woman, Christ the Messiah, who is the ground of this new covenant, and so of our communion and fellowship with God, without whom there can be no intercourse between God and us in love. And because this covenant was almost forgotten, therefore now in Abraham’s time God renewed it to Abraham in this place:  I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee,’ &c.

There are four periods of time of renewing this covenant: first, from Adam to Abraham; and in those first times of the world, those that were under the covenant were called the ‘sons and daughters of God, ‘the children of the promise,’ and the covenant of grace was called a promise of the blessed seed.

Secondly, From Abraham to Moses; and then it was called a covenant, and they the children of the covenant. ‘I will establish my covenant. ‘A covenant is more than a promise, and a more solemn thing, because there be ceremonies.

The third period of renewing the covenant of grace was from Moses to Christ; and then it was more clear, whenas to the covenant made with Abraham, who was sealed with the sacrament of circumcision, the sacrament of the paschal lamb was added, and all the sacrifices Levitical; and then it was called a testament. That differeth a little from a covenant; for a testament is established by blood, it is established by death. So was that; but it was only with the blood and death of cattle sacrificed as a type.

But now, to Christ’s time to the end of the world, the covenant of grace is most clear of all; and it is now usually called the New Testament, being established by the death of Christ himself; and it differs from a covenant in these respects:

First, A testament indeed is a covenant, and something more. It is a covenant sealed by death. The testator must die before it can be of force. So all the good that is conveyed to us by the testament it is by the death of the testator, Christ. God’s covenant with us now, is such a covenant as is a testament, sealed with the death of the testator, Christ; for ‘without blood there is no redemption’ Heb. ix. 22; without the death of Christ there could be no satisfaction, and without satisfaction there could be no peace with God.

Secondly, A testament bequeatheth good things merely of love. It giveth gifts freely. A covenant requireth something to be done. In a testament, there is nothing but receiving the legacies given. In covenants, ofttimes it is for the mutual good one of another, but a testament is merely for their good for whom the testament is made, to whom the legacies are bequeathed; for when they are dead, what can they receive from them? God’s covenant now is such a testament, sealed with the death of Christ, made out of love merely for our good; for what can God receive of us? All is legacies from him; and though he requireth conditions, requireth faith and obedience, yet he himself fulfilleth what he asketh, giveth what he requireth, giveth it as a legacy, as we shall see afterward.

Thus you see that the communion and fellowship of man with God, must either be by a covenant of works or by a covenant of grace. And we must distinguish exactly between these two covenants and the periods of them.

 Image

Image

Truth, Intolerance, and Motive. Is Doctrinal Truth more Important than Motive?

Image

Certainly with regard to Paul himself there should be no debate; Paul certainly was not indifferent to doctrine; on the contrary, doctrine was the very basis of his life. His devotion to doctrine did not, it is true, make him incapable of a magnificent tolerance. One notable example of such tolerance is to be found during his imprisonment at Rome, as attested by the Epistle to the Philippians. Apparently certain Christian teachers at Rome had been jealous of Paul’s greatness. As long as he had been at liberty they had been obliged to take a secondary place; but now that he was in prison, they seized the supremacy. They sought to raise up affliction for Paul in his bonds; they preached Christ even of envy and strife. In short, the rival preachers made of the preaching of the gospel a means to the gratification of low personal ambition; it seems to have been about as mean a piece of business as could well be conceived. But Paul was not disturbed. “Whether in presence, or in truth,” he said, “Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice” (Phil. 1. 18). The way in which the preaching was being carried on was wrong, but the message itself was true; and Paul was far more interested in the content of the message than in the manner of its presentation. It is impossible to conceive a finer piece of broadminded tolerance.

But the tolerance of Paul was not indiscriminate. He displayed no tolerance, for example, in Galatia. There, too, there were rival preachers.  But Paul had no tolerance for them. “But though we,” he said, “or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1. 8). What is the reason for the difference in the apostle’s attitude in the two cases? What is the reason for the broad tolerance in Rome, and the fierce anathemas in Galatia? The answer is perfectly plain. In Rome, Paul was tolerant, because there the content of the message that was being proclaimed by the rival teachers was true; in Galatia he was intolerant, because there the content of the rival message was false. In neither case did personalities have anything to do with Paul’s attitude. No doubt the motives of the Judaizers in Galatia were far from pure, and in an incidental way Paul does point out their impurity. But that was not the ground of his opposition. The Judaizers no doubt were morally far from perfect, but Paul’s opposition to them would have been exactly the same if they had all been angels from heaven. His opposition was based altogether upon the falsity of their teaching; they were substituting for the one true gospel a false gospel which was no gospel at all. It never occurred to Paul that a gospel might be true for one man and not for another; the blight of pragmatism had never fallen upon his soul. Paul was convinced of the objective truth of the gospel message, and devotion to that truth was the great passion of his life. Christianity for Paul was not only a life, but also a doctrine, and logically the doctrine came first.

But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of the Judaizers? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous polemic of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church the difference would have seemed to be a mere theological subtlety. About many things the Judaizers were in perfect agreement with Paul. The Judaizers believed that Jesus was the Messiah; there is not a shadow of evidence that they objected to Paul’s lofty view of the person of Christ. Without the slightest doubt, they believed that Jesus had really risen from the dead. They believed, moreover, that faith in Christ was necessary to salvation. But the trouble was, they believed that something else was also necessary; they believed that what Christ had done needed to be pieced out by the believer’s own effort to keep the Law. From the modern point of view the difference would have seemed to be very slight. Paul as well as the Judaizers believed that the keeping of the law of God, in its deepest import, is inseparably connected with faith. The difference concerned only the logical—not even, perhaps, the temporal—order of three steps. Paul said that a man (1) first believes on Christ, (2) then is justified before God, (3) then immediately proceeds to keep God’s law. The Judaizers said that a man (1) believes on Christ and (2) keeps the law of God the best he can, and then (3) is justified. The difference would seem to modern “practical” Christians to be a highly subtle and intangible matter, hardly worthy of consideration at all in view of the large measure of agreement in the practical realm. What a splendid cleaning up of the Gentile cities it would have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to those cities the observance of the Mosaic law, even including the unfortunate ceremonial observances! Surely Paul ought to have made common cause with teachers who were so nearly in agreement with him; surely he ought to have applied to them the great principle of Christian unity.

As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and only because he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the Christian Church exist today. Paul saw very clearly that the differences between the Judaizers and himself was the differences between two entirely distinct types of religion; it was the differences between a religion of merit and a religion of grace. If Christ provides only a part of our salvation, leaving us to provide the rest, then we are still hopeless under the load of sin. For no matter how small the gap which must be bridged before salvation can be attained, the awakened conscience sees clearly that our wretched attempt at goodness is insufficient even to bridge that gap. The guilty soul enters again into the hopeless reckoning with God, to determine whether we have really done our part. And thus we groan again under the old bondage of the law. Such an attempt to piece out the work of Christ by our own merit, Paul saw clearly, is the very essence of unbelief; Christ will do everything or nothing, and the only hope is to throw ourselves unreservedly on His mercy and trust Him for all.

Paul certainly was right. The differences which divided him from the Judaizers was no mere theological subtlety, but concerned the very heart and core of the religion of Christ.

“Just as I am without one plea,
But that Thy blood was shed for me”

—that was what Paul was contending for in Galatia; that hymn would never have been written if the Judaizers had won. And without the thing which that hymn expresses there is no Christianity at all.

J. Gresham Machen.
Christianaity and Liberalsim.
pp. 16-18

Image

From Samuel Rutherford’s letters concerning the passing of children.

Image

I know the language is tough but it is from the 17th Century Scottish Pastor Samuel Rutherford who bore the burdens of his parish deeply in his heart. I take comfort in his insight. His ability to comfort came at a cost.  He knew what it was to suffer loss and experience much pain and sorrow.  He also knew that our Children are not ours fully as they are God’s.

You can read a biography that I wrote about him here.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/samuel-rutherford/

Here are a few small portions of The Letters of Samuel Rutherford to comfort the afflicted upon the loss of life on this side….

‘Take no heavier lift of your children, than your Lord alloweth; give them room beside your heart, but not in the yolk of your heart, where Christ should be; for then they are your idols, not your *bairns. If your Lord take any of them home to his house before the storm come on, take it well, the owner of the orchard may take down two or three apples off his own trees, before midsummer, and *ere they get the harvest sun; and it would not be seemly that his servant, the gardener, should chide him for it. Let our Lord pluck his own fruit at any season he pleaseth; they are not lost to you, they are laid up so well, as that they are coffered in heaven, where our Lord’s best jewels lie.’

‘The child hath but changed a bed in the garden, and is planted up higher, nearer the sun, where he shall thrive better than in this out-field moor ground’

‘Go on and faint not, something of yours is in heaven, beside the flesh of your exalted Saviour, and ye go on after your own.’

‘He (she) is not lost to you who is found to Christ. If he (she) hath casten his bloom and flower, the bloom is fallen in heaven in Christ’s lap; and as he (she) was lent awhile to time, so is he now given to eternity, which will take yourself; and the difference of your shipping and his (hers) to heaven and Christ’s shore, the land of life, is only in some few years, which weareth every day shorter, and some short and soon reckoned summers will give you a meeting with him.’

*bairn [bɛən (Scot) bern]
n
Scot and northern English a child
[Old English bearn; related to bearm lap, Old Norse, Old High German barn child]

*ere [ɛə]
conj & prep
a poetic word for before
[Old English ǣr; related to Old Norse ār early, Gothic airis earlier, Old High German ēr earlier, Greek eri early]

(2Co 1:2) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

(2Co 1:3) Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort,

(2Co 1:4) who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.

(2Co 1:5) For as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.

(2Co 1:6) If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; and if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we suffer.

(2Co 1:7) Our hope for you is unshaken, for we know that as you share in our sufferings, you will also share in our comfort.

Sometimes the most simplest of things say the most profound…

Image

Jesus Loves Me this I know,

For the Bible Tells me So

Little Ones to Him Belong

They are weak but He is Strong.

“Jesus Loves Me” was a poem written back around 1860.  It was a poem written in a Novel  called Say and Seal by Susan Warner and used to comfort and dying child in the setting.  It was simplistic and quite profound.   It was the favorite hymn of one of America’s finest Biblical Scholars named Francis Schaeffer.  He realized that the simple truth conveyed in this song applied to the intellectual adult as well as the youngest child who could comprehend the comfort of a hug.  Also the great Irish missionary to India, Amy Carmichael, was converted to Christ after hearing this hymn at a children’s mission in Yorkshire, England.

Sometimes the most simplest of things can convey the most profound.

Preach the Gospel all the Time.  Use Words because they are necessary.

I learned about some of this tonight while driving home from Dayton, Ohio.  I was listening to an audio series that Focus on the Family puts out called Adventures in Odyssey.  I am always amazed at some of the things we can learn in some of the strangest places.

(Mat 18:1) At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

(Mat 18:2) And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them

(Mat 18:3) and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

(Mat 18:4) Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Be Very Encouraged, Jesus Loves us!

Randy

Image

Just thought this was interesting and I was blessed knowing that something so simple can be so profound.  Sometimes I complicate things more than they need to be.  Oh that I had eyes to see and ears to hear what the Spirit says to the church.  It would definitely ring loudly with his Word and the simplicity found in Christ.

The Teachings of Seventh-day-Adventism by Dr. John H. Gerstner

Image

 

From retired Pastor Joe Gwynn,

A project of mine this summer has been to type four out-of-print works by the late Dr. John H. Gerstner. They are critiques of four prominent cults that ensnare thousands of unwary people. They (the booklets) are carefully footnoted and therefore can be defended with confidence. In them you will learn things (especially about their founders and history) that many of their proponents who come knocking at your door either do not know or will not admit. My purpose was to make these booklets (25-30 pages each) available for free downloading and distribution. 

They are: 
· The Teachings of Mormonism
· The Teachings of Seventh-day Adventism
· The Teachings of Christian Science
· The Teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses

John H. Gerstner (1914–1996), M.Div. and M.Th. from Westminster Theological Seminary, and Ph.D. from Harvard University. Dr. Gerstner was Professor of Church History at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary for thirty years. After retiring, Dr. Gerstner, the favorite teacher of Dr. R.C. Sproul, was a frequent speaker at Ligonier Conferences before his death in 1996. An excellent historian and Reformed theologian, Dr. Gerstner also wrote several excellent books, including my favorite “Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth”, an excellent critique of Dispensationalism. 

In the one true God and his Son, Jesus Christ,
Joe Gwynn 

If you want this in Word format email me.
RMS

The Teaching of

Seventh-day Adventism

John H. Gerstner

John H. Gerstner (1914–1996), M.Div. and M.Th. from Westminster Theological Seminary, and Ph.D. from Harvard University. Dr. Gerstner was Professor of Church History at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary for thirty years. After retiring, Dr. Gerstner, a favorite teacher of Dr. R.C. Sproul, was a frequent speaker at Ligonier Conferences before his death in 1996. An excellent Reformed theologian, scholar and historian, Dr. Gerstner wrote many good books.
Contents
Introduction …………………………………………………………. Page 1
1. Description and History of Seventh-day Adventism …………. Page 2
2. Doctrines of Seventh-Day Adventists …………………………. Page 11
3. Terms Frequently Used by the Seventh-day Adventists ……. Page 15
4. For Further Reading ……………………………………………………. Page 16
5. Summary of Traditional Christian Doctrines …….……….…..………… Page 18
6. Brief Definitions of the Sects ……………..…………..………………… Page 21

Introduction

The abundance of literature on various “sects” shows that there is great interest in the subject. But what is a sect? We must make our definition clear, for there is wide difference of opinion on its meaning. 

Evangelicals generally use sect when referring to those denominations which do not hold to fundamental biblical principles … especially the deity of Christ and His atonement. This booklet is written from the evangelical perspective.

The teaching of Seventh-day Adventism is designed as a ready reference booklet. It is meant to be a quick guide to the wealth of literature on this subject, and it includes a valuable table and glossary.

The general exposition in the first chapter gives an easily-grasped overview of the sect. The following chapter, “Doctrines of Seventh-day Adventists” provides the reference material which summarizes the first chapter and adds some more technical data. Chapter two contains the basic theological structure of Seventh-day Adventists stated objectively and concisely. The text itself gives a fuller exposition of some of the cardinal points outlined in the first chapter. 

Chapter three. “Terms Frequently Used by Seventh-day Adventists,” gives some of the most common terms in the vocabulary of this sect. Sects often have their own precise definitions for common religious words, and the glossary makes this immediately evident.

Chapter four, “For Further Reading,” lists both primary and secondary sources for further study of the theology and practice of the sect.

A summary of the essential teachings of traditional Christianity appears in chapter five. This summary is included to provide a basis for comparison with the doctrines of Seventh-day Adventists. This chapter is designed to be used as a frame of reference.

To make the theologies of different sects clearer, their teachings have been summarized in the “Chart of Comparative Doctrines” at the end of chapter six. This tabular outline classifies the doctrines of Seventh-Day Adventists, and continuing with the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Scientists, this chart allows the reader to see at a glance the position of each group on various Christian doctrines.

1. Description and History of Seventh-day Adventism*

In the mid-nineteenth century, feelings that men were experiencing the Last Days were rife:

This was the grand clue – of the seventy weeks as the first segment of the 2,300 years, cut off for the Jews and climaxing with the Messiah – that burst simultaneously upon the minds of men in Europe and America, and even to Asia and Africa. This was the great advance truth that led to the emphasis upon the 2,300 years from 457 B.C. to A.D. 1843 or 1844 which we have surveyed. Clearer and clearer became the perception in the first four decades of the nineteenth century, until it reached its peak in America in the summer and autumn of 1844, contemporaneously with the predicted time of the prophecy.[1]

This is the historical setting which the outstanding Adventist scholar, Leroy Froom, in his massive and erudite volumes of The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, finds for the work of William Miller, whom he seems to regard as the first of the Adventists. Sears in Days of Delusion, Minnigerode in The Fabulous Forties, and others also seemed award of the fact that “in no other period in American history were ‘the last days’ felt to be so imminent as in that between 1820 and 1845”[2] Froom’s work shows us that this phenomenon was by no means restricted to this continent. 

William Miller

It was on the crest of this eschatological wave that William Miller was borne, and in its trough Seventh-day Adventism followed. Miller was born in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, on February 15, 1782. A reputable farmer, good soldier, and captain in the War of 1812, and apparently an outstanding citizen, he did not become famous until religious vicissitudes led him to a closer study of the Scriptures. At first, he was a rather typical, earnest member of the local Baptist church, but some skeptical friends of his eventually swept him into a frigid deism. After he had found his religious faith again, he applied himself much more earnestly to the study of the Bible. (Some would say that he applied himself too earnestly.) This pious farmer utilized every spare moment for sixteen years with his Bible and his concordance. Still, it is understandable that such a person, being unprotected by the corrective of church tradition, might very well fall into some naïve and extreme notions. Miller showed admirable restraint when, feeling that he had made a great discovery of the very imminent return of his Lord, he was able to say:
My great fear was, that in their joy at the hope of a glorious inheritance soon to be revealed, they would receive the doctrine without sufficiently examining the Scriptures in demonstration of its truth. I therefore feared to present it, lest by some possibility I should be in error, and be the means of misleading any.[3]

Still, one wonders why this untrained farmer did not hesitate to take the platform and announce to the world with bold certainty the outcome of his calculations about obscure prophetic predictions. As William Biederwolf said, “We was as ignorant of Hebrew as a Hottentot is of the Klondike.[4] That fact could have given him some reason for holding back from ex cathedra deliverances about the meaning of the 2300 days that are not supposed to be days and the seventy weeks that are not weeks. But after being asked to speak at a little church in Dresden, and there to continue for a week of services, it was not long before Miller was writing to his friend, Hendrys, “I devote my whole time, lecturing.”

The Growth of Adventism

By 1840 Adventism was becoming a significant religious movement. It was in that year that the influential Adventist periodical, The Signs of the Times, made its appearance to spread the imminency message far and wide. But more important still, the number of preachers and lecturers of the rousing message that Christ was due in 1843 had so increased that they quite naturally began a loose organization – always the first step toward a new sect. On October 13, 1840, a conference was held at the Reverend Joshua V. Hines’ Chardon Street Chapel, Boston. Great camp meetings began to characterize the ever-widening reach of the Adventist push. 

Finally, the great year of Millerite expectation, March 21, 1842 to March 21, 1843, came and went, but Christ was nowhere to be seen. Miller waited in vain – a disappointed man aware that he had made a mistake but was incapable of finding it. Six weeks later he wrote to his disillusioned followers:

Were I to live my life over again, with the same evidence that I then had, to be honest with God and man I should have to do as I have done. Although opposers said it would not come, they produced no weighty arguments. It was evidently guesswork with them; and I then thought, and do now, that their denial was based more on an unwillingness for the Lord to come than on any arguments leading to such a conclusion. [This was a most uncharitable remark, for many of these critics were lovers of the Lord and His glorious appearing who simply did not expect Him in 1843.] I confess my error, and acknowledge my disappointment: yet I still believe that the day of the Lord is near, even at the door; and I exhort you, my brethren, to be watchful, and not let that day come upon you unaware.[5]

Millerite hopes were now down but not out. 1844 dragged on flatly. Meetings went on flatly. At Exeter, New Hampshire, on August 12th, a camp meeting was dragging on when, rather suddenly, as if driven by the silent demand of a grieving multitude, one of the brothers announced that the return of Christ would be in the seventh month of the current Jewish year. The proposal caught on. The fading hopes lived again. A fixed date was set and once again, more fervently than ever before, the Millerites set out to warn the world; only this time Miller was to catch the fire rather than start it. October 22: The end of the world!

In then weeks the great day was at hand. In a Philadelphia store window the following sign was displayed: “This shop is closed in honor of the King of kings, who will appear about the 20th of October. Get ready, friends, to crown Him Lord of all.”[6] A group of two hundred left the city, just as Lot had left Sodom before impending doom. Most of the Millerites gave up their occupations during the last days; farmers left their crops in the fields. But the usual meetings in which believers gathered were surprisingly orderly and free of fanaticism. The sober Adventist research reveals that the stories of the Millerites climbing up mountains and poles and clothing themselves in white ascension robes were tall tales; the charges of Adventist insanity are reversed by sober, critical investigation.[7] Be all this as it may, the excitement was naturally very great and the second disappointment shattering. 

But hope seemed to spring eternal among the Adventists. Their basic Christian faith would not be crushed. And though they were no longer adjusting their timetable for the Lord’s return, they did keep their Adventist hope alive. On April 29, 1845, they assembled at Albany to take inventory of their hopes and state their faith. This meeting held them together.

Five years after Christ did not come to Miller, Miller went to be with Christ. “At the time appointed,” his tombstone at Low Hampton reads, “the end shall be.” 

Mrs. Ellen G. White

Miller was succeeded in the leadership of the Adventist movement by a person who was in every respect different from him. One obvious difference was that she was a woman – Mrs. Ellen G. White. She was a visionary where Miller had been a rather sober student. Miller always attempted to ground his witness on his exposition of the Bible, but Mrs. White went beyond the Bible with her numerous “revelations.” When Miller was mistaken he admitted it, but Mrs. White denied any error. While Miller was frankly disappointed, Mrs. White turned defeat into victory by reinterpretation.

Her very first vision was the cue: in 1844, right after the grand disillusionment, Mrs. White “saw” the Adventists marching straight to heaven. Mrs. White had a job for life as seer, and the Adventists had new assurance. Until her death in 1915, she was the outstanding Adventist leader. And, judging from Jan Van Baalen’s remark, though her teachings sometimes caused embarrassment, she still holds sway:

… it will not do for officials of this church to invite the present writer to forget about Mrs. White and to read current S.D.A. publications, while these same current publications state, “For her emphasis of Bible truth, for her application of specific doctrines, for her simplification of the deep things of God … the S.D.A. denomination and the world in general owe a great debt to Ellen G. White.”[8]

The Theology of Seventh-day Adventists

There is every indication that Seventh-day Adventism holds many of the catholic Christian doctrines. Miller, for example, 1n 1822 wrote a brief creed. As Francis Nichol says, “Any Calvinistic Baptist would probably subscribe to all except one of them, with scarcely a change of a word. In fact, if we eliminate from his creed Calvin’s dour doctrine of predestination, and the Baptist statement on the mode of baptism, virtually all conservative Protestant bodies would subscribe to the views set down”[9] Later Seventh-day Adventists have done very little to alter these views: they have merely modified Miller somewhat, held to the general Arminian system, and added several distinctive positions (especially pertaining to the atonement, the Sabbath, and the future). 

The Adventists accept the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Unfortunately, they also accept the inspiration and authority of Mrs. Ellen G. White. As a matter of fact, it seems highly doubtful that the Seventh-day Adventists would ever have come into existence but for the notion that in 1844 Christ entered into the heavenly sanctuary and they could never have become sure of such an idea without the visions of Mrs. White. The Adventists held their prophetress in high esteem. Biederwolf, however, was not so impressed by her abilities as a seeress. He lists a long number of unfulfilled visions, such as the following:

In one of her visions her accompanying angels told her that the time of salvation for all sinners ended in 1844. She now claims the door of mercy is still open.

In another vision she discovered that women should wear short dresses with pants and she and her sister followers dressed this way for eight years. But the ridiculous custom has now been abandoned … [10]

It is not in the realm of theology that Adventism deviates so greatly from the catholic Christian tradition, nor with respect to the person of Christ, but in its view of the atonement. “ ‘We dissent,’ they say, ‘from the view that the atonement was made upon the cross as is generally held.’ ”[11] The atonement was begun then but it was not ended then. For, “by a life of perfect obedience and by His sacrificial death, He satisfied divine justice, and made provision for atonement for the sins of men …”[12] Christ’s work as an atoning priest, according to Adventists, is not yet complete. He has yet to make the great atonement for sins. The formal blotting out of sins is still in the future. What delays Him? What is He doing now? In 1844 He entered the heavenly sanctuary and presumably is still there. He will complete the atonement when He comes out of the sanctuary and lays the sins of His people on Satan, who, like ancient Azazel, bears them away forever. 
Adventists hold to a rigorous system of sanctification in which a strict conformity to divine commands is appropriately enjoined. Characteristic of the group is an Old Testament legal favor to their laws. This is undoubtedly an outgrowth of their vigorous defense of the Jewish Saturday as the continuing Christian Sabbath. In their eagerness to show that the lay is still binding, there is proportionately high regard for other Old Testament laws (generally thought by other Christians to be abrogated). 

The following reasons refute the Adventist insistence on the perpetual obligation to observe the Lord’s Day on Saturday. First, although the Sabbath Day is perpetually binding as a part of the moral law, it does not follow that ancient legal features of that day are likewise necessarily binding – certainly not if there is evidence that they have been altered by later revelation. The particular day of the week is surely unimportant. A seventh day may be essential, but which seventh day could not possibly be essential. Just as Saturday could not have originally been most appropriate as symbols of the day of rest after creation, so Sunday became most appropriate as the day of rest after redemption. The Hebrew word for “Sabbath” means “rest,” not “Saturday.” Saturday was shown to be the intended Sabbath, when god gave a double portion of manna on the preceding day. In the new dispensation Sunday was shown to be the intended Sabbath when God raised His Son on that day.

Second, the New Testament does indicate that just such a change was made. Christ arose on Sunday, appeared on Sunday, the disciples assembled on Sunday, offerings were made on Sunday, and John was in the Spirit on Sunday.

The third reason grows out of the second and serves as a distinct confirmation of it. The practice of the early church revealed an early observation of Sunday as the new Sabbath, although the old Sabbath was observed when the church was still a part of Israel. Biederwolf has conveniently gathered the statements from the early Fathers:

The Epistle of Barnabus (A.D. 100) says, “Wherefore also we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day on which Jesus rose from the dead.” 

The Epistles of Ignatius (A.D. 107), a pupil of the apostles, whose writings were recommended by Polycarp, a friend of St. John’s, says, “And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord’s day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all days.”

Also from Ignatius: “Those who were concerned with old things have come to newness of confidence, no longer keeping sabbaths, but living according to the Lord’s day, on which our life as risen again through Him depends.” 

In the Writings of Justin Martyr (A.D. 145), it is said, “But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our communion assembly, because it is the first day of the week and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.” 

For some time Jewish Christians continued to keep both the Sabbath and Sunday, but such were accommodated as weaker brothers. According to Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 47: “But if some through weakmindedness, wish to observe such institutions as were given by Moses, along with their hope in Christ, yet choose to live with the Christians and the faithful, as I have said before, not inducing them either to be circumcised, like themselves, or to keep the Sabbath, or to observe any other such ceremonies, then I hold that we ought to join ourselves to such, and associate with them in all things as kinsmen and brethren.” 

Apostolic Constitutions (Second Century): “On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord’s day, assemble yourselves together without fail, giving thanks to God and praising Him for those mercies bestowed upon you through Christ.” 

Dionysius of Corinth (A.D. 170), in an epistle to the Church of Rome, wrote: “Today we kept the Lord’s holy day in which we read your letter.” 

Melito of Sardis (A.D. 175) wrote a treatise on “The Lord’s Day.” 

Irenaeus (A.D. 160-200) says: “The mystery of the Lord’s resurrection may not be celebrated on any other day than the Lord’s Day and on this alone should we observe the breaking of the Paschal Feast.” 

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 174) wrote: “The old seventh day has become nothing more than a working day.” 

Bardesanes (A.D. 180) says in his book of The Laws of Countries: “On one day, the first of the week, as we assemble ourselves together.” 

Tertullian (A.D. 200) says in his Apologeticus: “In the same way we devote Sunday to rejoicing, from a far different reason than sun-worship, we have some resemblance of to some of you ‘The Jews’, who devote the day of Saturn (Saturday) to ease and luxury.” In another of his works he wrote: “He who argues for Sabbath keeping and circumcision must show that Adam and Abel and the just of old times observed these things … We observe the day of the Lord’s resurrection laying aside our worldly business.” 

Origen (A.D. 185-255) says: “John the Baptist was born to make ready a people for the Lord, a people fit for Him at the end of the Covenant now grown old, which is the end of the Sabbath.” He further wrote, “It is one of the marks of a perfect Christian to keep the Lord’s day.” 

Victorianus (A.D. 300) says: “On the Lord’s day we go forth to our bread with the giving of thanks. Lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath with the Jews, which Christ himself the Lord of the Sabbath in his body abolished” (On the Creation of the World, section 14). 

Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 306), says: “But the Lord’s day we celebrate as the day of joy because on it He rose again.” 

Eusebius (A.D. 324) of the Ebionites says: “They also observed the Sabbath and other discipline of the Jews just like them, but on the other hand, they also celebrate the Lord’s day very much like us.” (Ecclesiastical History, pages 112f.).

A fourth argument is the inherently inconsistent position of the Adventists on the Saturday Sabbath. For one thing, they are obliged to abandon some of the strict Jewish regulations, such as the one forbidding the picking up of sticks to make a fire. Unfortunately, some Adventists actually regard all who observe Sunday as having received the mark of the beast.[13] They say that “evangelical churches that do not observe the seventh day are the ‘false church’ …”[14] The United States government becomes a dragon when it makes Sabbath laws; the Adventists work earnestly against laws that protect the American Sunday.[15] One evangelist goes so far as to make refusal to observe Saturday the “unpardonable sin.”[16]

This defensive spirit developed early in the movement when it was found that most of the evangelical churches were not sympathetic to the Millerite expectation. First, Fitch told Adventists of their obligation to come out of other churches, Protestant no less than Romanist.[17] This sentiment spread rapidly. But Miller himself was able to say as late as 1844: “ ‘I have not advised anyone to separate from the churches to which they may have belonged, unless their brethren cast them out, or deny them religious privileges … I have never designed to make a new sect …’ “[18] Joshua Himes came over to the separatist viewpoint finally, but Miller held out, though rather silently, to the end. Present-day Adventism requires would-be members to confess that the “Seventh-day Adventist Church is ‘the remnant church’ “[19] This remnant and only true church (as they say) practices baptism by immersion, observes the Lord’s Supper, and follows a congregational organization. 

Unquestionably, the outstanding distinctive of the Adventist church is its eschatology. Its doctrine of the intermediate state – soul sleep – it shares with some other sects. (“The state to which we are reduced by death is one of silence, inactivity and entire unconsciousness.”[20]) But, its doctrine of the Second Coming is uniquely its own. After Miller was disappointed in 1843 and again in 1844, one of the Adventists, Hiram Edson, claimed a vision of Christ entering the heavenly sanctuary. So Christ had returned – only not to earth, but to heaven. Mrs. White later gave this vision her imprimatur and filled out the various details.
How did the Adventists conclude that Christ would return in 1844? Basically they accepted Miller’s calculations. Miller reasoned this way: Daniel 8:14 says that the sanctuary would be restored in “two thousand and three hundred days.” Miller believed that a prophetic day equals one year. So he calculated that it was two thousand and three hundred years before the sanctuary was to be cleansed by Christ’s return. But what was the date from which we are to calculate? Miller saw that there was the seventy weeks’ passage in Daniel 9. He figured this meant seventy weeks of years; that is, seventy times seven years or four hundred ninety years, Four hundred ninety years, the prophecy said, until the Messiah be cut off. When was Christ cut off? A.D. 33. Four hundred ninety years earlier brought us to the date of 457 B.C., and that was the date of the determination of the decree allowing Ezra to return. Now add to this date the twenty-three hundred years of Daniel 8:14. The result is 1843. 

History has demonstrated conclusively that Miller was wrong. And Miller was wise enough to admit it, although he could detect no error in his calculations. But when Edson revealed that “the sanctuary to be cleansed is heaven,” and Crozier found him a proof text in Hebrews 8:1-1, Mrs. White canonized the discovery.[21] It does behoove us, however, since history must needs be silent on such a claim, to investigate whether this fanciful rendering is made out of a whole cloth like the alleged ascension robes of the Adventists. 

First, then, let us note what Hebrews 8:1-2 has to say: “ … we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord.” It does surely indicate that there is a heavenly sanctuary, and that Christ is its priest. But it also indicates that He has already sat down (presumably, having completed His work of atonement). It is clearly taught in Scripture that Christ cried out on the cross, “It is finished”; that the veil separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies tore from top to bottom (indicating that Christ made possible a new way of access to the throne of God): and that Jesus fulfilled all the Old Testament prophecies and types of atonement, making further sacrifices unnecessary. Had the Adventists not been driven to despair and disappointment, they probably would not have denied all these things.

According to Adventists, now that Christ has entered the heavenly sanctuary, He makes an “investigative judgment,” to use Mrs. White’s term; that is, He investigates the professed believers to see who are really in the faith. When this is completed, He will return to the world. At His return, the righteous who are living will be translated to heaven, and the righteous dead will be resurrected and taken to the same place. There they will spend the millennium – and not on the earth. The earth will be desolate during the whole period. But, meanwhile, the punishment of the wicked will be determined. After this unique millennium, Christ will return to the earth with the righteous “where eternity will be spent.”[22] Satan and the wicked will be annihilated.

2. Doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventists

Doctrine of the Bible

The Bible is inspired, but not verbally and infallibly so. The prophetess, Mrs. Ellen G. White, apparently regarded her interpretations on a par with the Bible. “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 already insulted the Spirit of God (Ellen G. White, Testimonies, Vol. V, pp. 661, 664). The Seventh-day Adventists have acknowledged her authority and continue to maintain it today, as this official statement of the General Conference reported in the “Seventh-Day Journal, The Advent Review and Herald, shows: “Seventh-Day Adventists hold 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 …, so we believe that Mrs. White was a prophet to the Church of Christ today” (October 4, 1928). Such a statement places Mrs. White in the category with the recognized inspired agents of the Bible; the following does the same by condemning a person who accepted some parts of her testimonies and not others with these words: “This is precisely the attitude taken by the ‘higher critics’ toward the Bible. They single out certain parts of the Bible and assert that these are not inspired. But no more subtle nor effective method can be employed than this to break down all faith in all inspired writings … The Ellen G. White books are a tower of spiritual power … a guiding light to the Adventist people” (The Advent Review and Herald, April 4, 1957). T. E. Rabok summarized the whole matter: “The Bible is not verbally inspired; and neither are the writings of Ellen G. White (BHP, p. 194) – yet both are inspired. The Articles of Faith affirm the Bible to be the “unerring rule of faith and practice” (1957 Yearbook, p. 4, italics mine).

Doctrine of God

God is tri-personal and His essential attribute is love. “It is the supreme revelation between Himself and all created life – yes, the supreme revelation between the Persons of the ever-blessed Trinity” (A. S. Maxwell, Your Friends the Adventists, p. 18). Only God is immortal, according to the Adventists (Ochat, TB, p. 42). 

Doctrine of Man

The Seventh-day Adventists differ very little from most Protestant churches in their teaching concerning the nature of man. This is clear from the official statement: “Mortal man possesses a nature inherently sinful and dying. Eternal life is the gift of God through faith in Christ” (1957 Yearbook, p. 4). Nevertheless, one writer (Ochat) says: “If man had never sinned, he would have lived eternally.” This seems in keeping with Mrs. White’s conception that “his [man’s] nature was in harmony with the will of God. His mind was capable of comprehending divine things. His affections were pure; his appetites and passions were under the control of reason. He was holy and happy in bearing the image of God, and in perfect obedience to his will” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 45). She goes further, saying “So long as they [Adam and Eve] remained loyal to the divine law, their capacity to know, to enjoy, to love, would continually increase” (ibid., p. 51). The first parents had “no bias toward evil” (p. 49), but nevertheless they did have a “desire for self-indulgence, the fatal passion” (p. 48). Man’s very freedom required his ability to transgress God’s commands and this he did. Though Adam was holy and growing in holiness, still “it was possible [italics mine] for Adam before the fall, to form a righteous character …” (Ellen G. White, Steps to Christ, p. 65).

Doctrine of Sin

A clear definition of the imputation of Adam’s guilt is not to be found in Seventh-day Adventist teaching. Mrs. White says that Adam could have formed a righteous character, “But he failed to do this, and because of his sin our natures are fallen, and we cannot make ourselves righteous” (SC, p. 65). “The unaided human will has no real power to resist and overcome evil” (Ellen G. White, Ministry of Healing, p. 429). There is apparently an exception in the case of unbelief, for belief may and must precede regeneration. This implies fallen man’s ability to believe. 

Doctrine of Christ

“Jesus Christ is very God, being of the same nature and essence as the Eternal Father (1957 Yearbook, p. 4). Deviating from Christian orthodoxy, the Adventists teach that Christ took a polluted human nature: “In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful fallen nature. If not, then He was not ‘made like unto His brethren,’ was not ‘in all points tempted like we are,’ did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not therefore, the complete and perfect Saviour man needs and must have to be saved” (Bible Readings for the Home Circle, 1915 ed., p. 115). Our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation” (Ellen G. White, The Desire of Ages, p. 117). Some writers believe that the Adventists no longer hold this doctrine of the Incarnation. Their latest official statement neither affirms nor denies it: “While retaining His divine nature He took upon Himself the nature of the human family, lived on earth as a man, exemplified in His life as our Example the principles of righteousness …” (1957 Yearbook, p. 4). The handling of the classical text on this point, Hebrews 4:15, in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary is significant. With reference to Christ’s being tempted “in all points,” the Commentary says: “In some mysterious way that we can not understand, our Lord experienced the full weight of every conceivable temptation the ‘prince of this world’ (John 12:31) could press upon Him, but without in the least degree, even by a thought, responding to any of them.” Christ’s being “without sin” is explained thus: “Herein lies the unfathomable mystery of the perfect life of our Saviour. For the first time human nature was led to victory over its natural tendency to sin.” This last statement assumes that Christ possessed a “natural tendency to sin,” which He conquered. 

Doctrine of Redemption

Though God is just, He has mercifully provided a way of salvation through Christ. All have an opportunity to be saved. Those who reject Christ are not damned but annihilated. Those who do believe receive the greater benefit of reconciliation. The Adventist theory of the atonement is as follows: (1) Christ who lived “in blameless obedience to His own eternal law of righteousness offered up a complete, perfect, and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of men” (A. S. Maxwell, Your Friends the Adventists, p. 19). This was not the atonement, however, for, say the Adventists, “we dissent from the view that the atonement was made upon the cross” (Fundamental Principles, p. 2). (2) In 1844, “attended by heavenly angels, our great High Priest enters the Holy of Holies … to there make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to his benefits” (Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, p. 308). This is Mrs. White’s reference to the “investigative judgment” which Christ is thought to have made in the Holy of Holies in heaven. (3) “Before He [Christ] takes His throne as King, He will make the great atonement … and their sins will be blotted out” (FP). The completion of the atonement comes when Christ, emerging from the Holy of Holies, lays the sins of those who have been found to be true believers upon Azazel (or Satan), who carries away the sins of the world into the wilderness. 

The Seventh-day Adventists (who are not especially articulate on this point) consider justification to be an infused, rather than imputed, righteousness. As Mayer observes, “Faith takes hold of Christ’s divine power, inducting the believing into the covenant relationship where the Law of God is written on his heart, and through the enabling power of the indwelling Christ his life is brought into conformity with the divine precepts” (Religious Bodies of America, p. 435). Though often charged with legalism, the Seventh-day Adventists insist that salvation is by faith in Christ and not based on the works of the law, though those are always present. They attempt to avoid both antinomianism and legalism.

With the power of Christ within, the Seventh-day Adventist is to work out his own sanctification by strict conformity to the law of God. The law as given in the Old Testament remains largely unchanged for the Adventist. He believes that the sixth commandment requires abstinence from war, tobacco, alcohol, and other detrimental social or personal practices. “The Seventh-day Adventists make the use of intoxicants and tobacco in any form the ground for exclusion from church fellowship” (R. S. Howells, His Many Mansions, p. 36). By far the greatest concern is with the fourth commandment. “Sabbath” in the commandment is taken to mean Saturday rather than the day of rest. It is therefore taught that the holy day could never be changed to another day in the week without overthrowing the fourth commandment. Saturday Sabbath was founded at the creation and Adam’s fall was caused by his violation of it, according to some Adventist interpretations of Hosea 6:7. This command is the center of the whole law. “in support of this assertion they say that of 497 words which make the Decalog in the English form (AV) the word ‘is’ of the Sabbath Commandment (‘This is the Sabbath of the Lord’) is the 249th word, or exactly in the center of the Decalog” (Carlyle B. Haynes, The Christian Sabbath, p. 34). Sunday observance is the mark of the beast referred to in Revelation 16:2, which mark is on the harlot of Babylon, according to Revelation 14 (cf. White, The Great Controversy, 1911 ed., p. 449). Sunday worship was, according to the Prophets, the abomination which had to be cleansed from the Holy of Holies when Christ entered in 1844. The evangelist D. E. Venden, The Chaos of Cults, p. 188). 

Doctrine of the Church

The general Christian interpretation of the New Testament church in relation to the Old Testament Israel is that it is the same in “substance” (all are believers in the mercy of God) and different only in the “accidents” (the mode of worship, etc.). The Adventists tend to reject even the modal differences between the Old Testament and New Testament church. Thus, the very day of worship must not be changed; dietary laws are still in force; Jerusalem is still the proper center of worship; the payment of the tithe is required; circumcision and the Passover are still observed (cf. Paul Scheurlen, Die Sekten der Gegenwart, p. 20). 

A tendency to separate from professing Christendom, since she is the harlot of Babylon with the mark of the beast, was to be anticipated. Separation occurred in spite of the advice of the original leader of the movement, William Miller (Signs of the Times, Jan. 31, 1844, p. 196). “S.D.A. requires for baptism a confession that the S.D.A. Church ‘the remnant Church’ (excluding all others!)” (Van Baalen, CC, p. 188). The papacy is Anti-Christ (Dan. 7:25), the first beast of Revelation. Since “followers of Christ will be led to abstain from all intoxicating drinks, tobacco, and other narcotics, and to avoid body and soul defiling habit and practice,” vast masses of professing Christians are implicitly unchurched. This principle does not spear to prevent cooperation with some other denominations.

The organization of the Seventh-day Adventists is rather Baptistic. A group of believers may form a local, autonomous congregation which is supervised by one or more elders. Local congregations join to form larger unions. A General Conference is convened quadrennially. Seventh-day Adventists are not only Baptistic in their practice of baptism of adults only and that by immersion. Also practiced at their quarterly meetings is the rite of foot-washing (Howells, His Many Mansions, pp. 351.; Questions on Doctrine, p. 24). 

Doctrine of the Future

(1) Christ entered into the heavenly Holy of Holies. William Miller, on the basis of Daniel 8:14 (interpreting 2300 days as 2300 ye4ars), concluded that 2300 years were to elapse prior to the return of Christ. But 2300 years from what date? Miller thought it was 457 B.C. (AD, chap. II) from which the following calculation was made … ( – 457 B.C. + 2300 years = 1843 A.D.), the date of the return. Later he modified his calculation to 1844, then repudiated the whole scheme when Christ did not return. The Seventh-day Adventists adopted the view that Christ did come, but not to earth – rather to the heavenly Holy of Holies to purify it and instigate the Investigative Judgment. (2) Investigative Judgment. Christ entered the heavenly Holy of Holies and began the searching of hearts to see who were true Christians. “This work of judgment in the heavenly sanctuary began in 1844. Its completion will close human probation” (1975 Yearbook, p. 5). (3) Christ will come out of the Holy of Holies and lay the guilt of His people on Azazel. (4) Imminently He will come to the earth to annihilate the wicked and resurrect His people, living and dead (the souls sleep at death until this resurrection [Fundamental Principles, p. 12]). He will take them with Him to heaven for the millennium, leaving Satan on the desolate earth. (5) Christ will return to earth to accomplish three purposes: a. Destroy Satan; b. Purify the earth by fire (II Peter 3:10); Live with His resurrected saints (the 144,000) on the regenerated earth for eternity.

3. Terms Frequently Used by the Seventh-day Adventists

Annihilation: The doctrine that unbelievers will not be eternally punished but will be destroyed.

Armageddon: Impending battle in Palestine between the hosts of Christ and Antichrist, which will issue in the destruction of the latter.

Azazel: The name of the scapegoat used in the sacrifice on the day of atonement. Mrs. White taught that Azazel was a type of Satan, who was the scapegoat for the sins of God’s people.

Great Controversy: Mrs. White’s most basic writing, describing the great historic struggle between God and the devil.

Investigative Judgment: Refers to the activity of Christ, which began in 1844 when He entered the Holy of Holies. Until His second advent, He will examine the hearts of all professing Christians to ascertain their sincerity.

Liberty: A magazine expressing Adventist principles of the Sabbath and advocating separation of church and state.

Midnight Cry: The announcement which immediately precedes the return of Christ; the term is based on the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13). 

Millennium: The coming visible reign of Christ on earth during which an effective enforced peace will prevail and evangelization will be accelerated. 

Patriarchs and Prophets: One of the more important of the many writings of Mrs. Mary Ellen White.

Signs of the Times: An Adventist periodical.

Soul-sleep: At death, the soul of the Christian passes into a state of unconsciousness until the return of Christ.

2300: “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed” (Daniel 8:14). This is taken to mean 2300 years from the defiling of the temple in 457 B.C. ( – 457 B.C. + 2300 years = 1843 A.D. ). 1843, therefore was the date calculated by William Miller to be the time of Christ’s return. Later he figured it at 1844. Still later, the movement adopted Mary Ellen White’s interpretation that Christ did return in 1844, but not to earth – instead, He entered the heavenly Holy of Holies to present the blood of the atonement. 

4. For Further Reading

Andross, Mrs. MatildaStory of the Adventist Message. Washington, D. C.; Review and Herald Publishing Co., n.d.

Bible Readings for the Home: A Topical Study in Question and Answer Form. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Co., 1947.

Bliss, SylvesterMemoirs of William Miller, Generally Known as a Lecturer on the Prophecies, and the Second Coming of Christ. 1853. Reprint. New York: AMS Press, n.d.

Froom, LeRoy EdwinThe Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers. 4 vols. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Co., 1950.
______ “Seventh-day Adventists.” In the American Church of the Protestant Heritage, edited by Vergilius T. Ferm. 1953. Reprint. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, Inc., n.d.

Hoekema, Anthony ASeventh-day Adventism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Lewis GordonThe Bible, the Christian, and Seventh-day Adventists. Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1966.
______ Confronting the Cults. Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1966.

Lindsell, Harold. “What of Seventh-day Adventism?” Christianity Today, March 31, 1958 and April 14, 1958.

Loughborough, J. N. The Great Second Advent Movement, its Rise and Progress. 1905. Reprint. New York: Arno Press, n.d.

Martin, Walter R. The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960.
_______ The Kingdom of the Cults. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1965.

Nichol, Francis D. “The Growth of the Millerite Legend.” Church History, vol. 21, no. 4 (1952, pp. 296 ff.
_______ The Midnight Cry. A Defense of the Character and Conduct of William Miller and the Millerites, Who Mistakenly Believed that the Second Coming of Christ would take place in the Year 1844. 1944. Reprint. New York: AMS Press, n.d.

Olsen, M. Ellsworth. A History of the Origin and Progress of Seventh-Day Adventists . 1925. Reprint. New York: AMS Press, n.d. 

Sears, Clara Endicott. Days of Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1924.

Seventh Day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine. Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Co., 1957.

Smith,Uriah. The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. Nashville: Southern Publishing Association, 1949.

Talbot, Louis T. What’s Wrong with Seventh-day Adventism? Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1956.

White, Ellen G. The Desire of Ages; the Conflict of the Ages Illustrated in the Life of Christianity. Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press Publishing Assn., 1940.

5. Summary of Traditional Christian Doctrines.

In the following chapter we present views which are held by the church without exception (unless so indicated). There are three main branches of the catholic (universal) church: Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Roman Catholic. These have differences among them, but there is a remarkable consensus of viewpoint on the basic structure of Christian doctrine. This fact is justification for use of the term “the catholic church.” We have chosen quotations from official creeds of these branches to illustrate the various doctrines.

Doctrine of the Bible

The catholic church believes the sixty-six books of the Old Testament and New Testament to be the plenarily inspired Word of God. The Roman Church adds to this number some of the apocrypha. The Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches seem to give ecclesiastical tradition virtually equal authority with Scripture. The Protestant churches, however, hold tosola scriptura. Thus, the Lutheran Formula of Concord affirms: “We believe, confess, and teach that the only rule and norm, according to which all dogmas and all doctors ought to be esteemed and judged, is no other whatever than the prophetic and apostolic writings both of the Old and of the New Testament.” The French Confession of Faith says of the Bible that “inasmuch as it is the rule of all truth, containing all that necessary for the service of God and for our salvation, it is not lawful for men, nor even for angels, to add to it, to take away from it, or to change it.” The American Revision of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England states: “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” 

Doctrine of God

The Athanasian Creed, accepted as an ecumenical creed by all branches of the church, reads: “ … we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance (Essence). For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father incomprehensible (unlimited or infinite), the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal … so the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God … the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped.” The Westminster Shorter Catechism teaches: “There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.” 

Doctrine of Man

Again we may use the Westminster Shorter Catechism, for it expresses what all catholic churches believe about man. “God created man, male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over the creatures.”

Doctrine of Sin

The Roman Catholic statement made at the Council of Trent contains a catholic affirmation: “ … Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and … he incurred, through the offense of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through the offense of prevarication, was changed , in body, and soul, for the worse … this sin of Adam … [is] transfused into all by propagation, not by imitation … “ All catholic churches say at least this much; some, such as the Reformed, make more of the consequences of the Fall. 

Doctrine of Christ

We may use the historic confession of the Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451), for this has been recognized through the ages by all branches of orthodox Christendom as a true statement concerning the person of Jesus Christ. “ … our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one. Person and Substance, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ …”

We note that the expression, “Mary, the Mother of God,” is a genuinely catholic expression. It does not mean that Mary was the genetrix of God, but that the human nature which was begotten in her womb was united with the eternal Son of God. So Mary was the mother of the child who was God; i.e., the mother of God.

Doctrine of Redemption

The satisfaction view of the atonement is the truly classic view of the catholic church. This could be shown from Protestant, Roman, or Eastern Orthodox creeds. We will show it by a citation from “The Longer Catechism” of the Eastern Orthodox Church: “Therefore as in Adam we had all fallen under sin, the curse, and death, so we are delivered from sin, the curse, and death in Jesus Christ. His voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of one sinless, God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have the victory over sin and death.” 

There is a great difference among the three divisions of Christendom concerning the appropriation of this redemption achieved by Christ. The Protestant churches teach that it is by faith alone; the other branches incline to the view that it is by faith and works, or by faith considered as the beginning of works. 

All branches of the church teach that the Christian has an obligation to endeavor to keep the moral law of God and that a person who does not do so is a reprobate. There is a doctrine in the Roman Church which is inconsistent with this, but nevertheless she teaches the above explicitly. 

Doctrine of the Church

The Westminster Confession of Faith contains a definition of the church shared by all bodies of Christendom which accept the notion of the invisibility of the church. “The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the true religion, and of their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” 

Doctrine of the Future

While there has been less defining of the doctrine of the future by the catholic church than has been true of other doctrines, what has been stated is unanimously affirmed. All branches of Christendom are agreed that there is a place of eternal felicity, called heaven, where redeemed men and unfallen angels dwell in the gracious presence of God. It is also taught that there is a place of eternal misery, called hell, where all unredeemed men and fallen angels dwell in the wrathful presence of God. The Roman Catholic Church maintains, in addition, the existence of purgatory, the limbus patrum, and the limbus infantum. Universal salvation has been taught by various individuals, but no church recognized by catholic Christianity has affirmed it.

6. Brief Definitions of the Sects

Seventh-day Adventism teaches that salvation is attained by faith in the atonement made by Christ in 1844. This faith must be expressed in obedience to the ethical teachings of the Bible (including the Saturday Sabbath) and in acceptance of the doctrinal teachings of the Bible (including the imminent premillennial return of Christ).

Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be the only consistent Bible students. They find the vindication of Jehovah to be the fundamental aim of history. This vindication of Jehovah is accomplished by the atonement of the first-born creature, Jesus, and expressed by the witnessing to an impending Armageddon. At this battle Jehovah and His witnesses will be vindicated and the final consummation of things will begin.

Mormonism is built on a revelation subsequent to the Bible, called the Book of Mormon. According to this book, the church is to be recognized on the basis of a creed which teaches a plurality of created gods, repudiates justification by faith, and teaches a salvation achieved by the merit of obeying divine laws.

Christian Science is a formula for health and wealth by right thinking, but its thinking denies the reality of poverty and sickness. 

Doctrines Traditional Christian Mormonism Seventh-day Adventism Jehovah’s Witnesses Christian Science
Bible Verbally inspired Inspired Bible and Book of Mormon Reluctant to affirm verbal inspiration; vague about status of Mrs. White Verbally inspired Bible inspired andScience and Health is its inspired interpretation
God Three Persons in one essence Polytheism Approximately traditional Christian view Uni-personal Impersonal and pantheistic
Man Body & soul created good Pre-existent soul takes body at birth in this world Body-soul creature; created neutral or with inclination to evil Body; soul not distinguishable from body Soul only; body is an illusion
Sin Result of Adam’s disobedience; corruption of nature and action It was necessary for Adam to sin. This brought mortality without guilt No clear doctrine of imputation of Adam’s sin; man now polluted Adam’s sin brought liability to temporal death “There is no sin” – it is an illusion
Christ One divine person in two distinct natures (divine-human) Called creator but only pre-existent spirit who took body at incarnation Like traditional view but represents human nature as having tendency to sin First born creature; changed into man at birth in this world Christ is a divine idea; Jesus is mere human

Redemption

Faith in atonement as expressed by holy life Atonement gives man chance to earn salvation Believing in atonement made in heaven plus holy living including observance of the Saturday Sabbath Christ’s ransom gives man chance to earn salvation Salvation is casting out idea of sin
Church Mystical union of all true believers; visible union of all professed believers Other churches apostate; efficient hierarchical organization Seems to regard itself as true remnant church Traditional church rejected; 144,000 witnesses make up Church A denomination like Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish
Future Eternal heaven, eternal hell, temporary purgatory (R.C.) Pre-millennial reign at Independence, MO; tends toward universal salvation Annihilation of the wicked; millennium in heaven and eternity on new earth Earthly millennium during which final probation leading to annihilation or eternal life Universal salvation in future when idea of sin gradually dies

*There may be a difference of opinion as to whether the Seventh-day Adventists should be classified as a “sect.” Dr. Walter Martin classifies them as an evangelical group and makes a strong case for his view in his book, The Truth about Seventh-day Adventism. We would urge all interested students to secure Dr. Martin’s book and reread this booklet in the light of that book.
[1] L. E. Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. III, p. 749.

[2] Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, p. 101.

[3] William Miller, Apology and Defense, p. 16, cited by Francis D. Nichol, Midnight Cry, p. 34.

[4] Nichol, Midnight Cry, p. 57.

[5] Bliss, Memoirs of William Miller, p. 256, cited by Nichol, Midnight Cry, p. 171.

[6] Cf. Nichol, Midnight Cry, pp. 238 ff., 362f., 413.

[7] Cf. Francis D. Nichol, “The Growth of the Millerite Legend” in Church History, vol. XXI, no. 4, December 1952, pp. 296 ff.

[8] Jan Karel Van Baalen, The Chaos of Cults, 1956 edition, p. 2224.

[9] Nichol, Midnight Cry, p. 36.

[10] Biederwolf, Seventh-day Adventism, pp. 8f.

[11] Fundamental Principles (S.D.A. tract), p. 2, cited by Biederwolf, Seventh-day Adventism, p. 24.

[12] What Do Seventh-day Adventists Believe? (S.D.A. tract), p. 6, cited by Van Baalen, Chaos of Cults, p. 173.

[13] Ellen G. White, The Great Controversy, 1911 ed., p. 449.

[14] “Are You on the Right Bus?” in Signs of the Times, Nov., 1945, cited by Van Baalen, Chaos of Cults, 1956 edition, p. 229.

[15] Blakely, American State Papers on Freedom, pp. 260 ff. and passim.

[16] Cf. Van Baalen, Chaos of Cults, 1956 edition, p. 229.

[17] Nichol, Midnight Cry, p. 148.

[18] Signs of the Times, Jan. 31, 1844, cited by Nichol, Midnight Cry, pp. 159f.

[19] Cf. Van Baalen, Chaos of Cults, 1956 edition, p. 229.

[20] Fundamental Principles, p. 12.

[21] Loughborough, The Great Second Advent Movement, p. 192.

[22] Clark, The Small Sects in America, 2nd edition, p. 42.