Mrs. Ellen G. White, one of the principle founders of Seventh-day Adventism and it's inspired prophetess, once said the following concerning the foundation of the Advent movement:
"The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith was the declaration: "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." (Daniel 8:14) The Great Controversy page 408
The Seventh-day Adventist denomination was built upon the foundation laid during the Millerite movement of the 1830's & 40's. When the "Great Disappointment" happened in 1844, the Advent believers gathered together and began their own denomination upon the "visions" of Ellen White and their sanctuary teaching. Soon though, the Sabbath would take a prominent position within the movement, to the extent that; though the sanctuary teaching actually kept them from falling apart into dis-unity, it was the Sabbath that eventually became the central focus for the denomination, as it is to this day.
The Seventh-day Adventist denomination is based upon a very specific interpretation of Bible prophecy. Without this specific understanding, there would literally be no reason for the denomination to exist! Therefore, there has been many an Adventist apologist concerned with the sustaining of the Adventist denomination's prophetic significance.
It is claimed that the Seventh-day Adventist denomination is the last day "remnant church", meaning that all other churches have gone astray from Bible truth; and that God has specially raised up the Adventist denomination to restore His truth. Of course, this understanding is also taught by the Latter Day Saints, which pre-dated the Seventh-day Adventists. Even Islam teaches this in a slightly different form. So this teaching is nothing new.
What we will do now is consider the two Adventist propositions that,
1) God would utilize a specific interpretation of Scripture prophecy to raise up a church, and,
2) that God would actually allow His original Church to be corrupted so that He would have to raise up "another" church.
Proposition #1: God would utilize a specific interpretation of Scripture prophecy to raise up a church
In the New Testament we are told what the foundation of the Church that God established is:
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?...And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God...And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:13, 16-18
"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1Corinthians 3:11
"Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1Corinthians 10:1-4
"Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:" Ephesians 2:19-21
"As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him—you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says:
"See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame." Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone," 1Peter 2:4-7
It is clear from the Apostolic teaching that the foundation of the Church is Christ Himself. Was the Adventist denomination built upon Christ? As I said before, Seventh-day Adventism comes directly from "Adventism" or "Millerism". Ellen White, the inspired writer of the movement, purported to receive visions from God that their movement was of God. She said that the Advent movement was founded primarily upon a single Scripture of Bible prophecy, that being Daniel 8:14. But if God had founded His Church already upon Christ His only-begotten Son, why then would He seek to establish a "competitor"? Thus we come to Seventh-day Adventism's second proposition:
Proposition #2: that God would actually allow His original Church to be corrupted so that He would have to raise up "another" church
The Adventist denomination is very vocal about saying that the original Church that God established through His only-begotten Son, had went astray. This, they say happened toward the end of the first century and the beginning of the second century after the last Apostle died. But is this point of view Biblical or logical?
First, the claim that the Church went astray is not Biblical. Notice the following passages:
"...I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:..." John 16:13
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish...For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:" Ephesians 5:25-27, 29
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1Timothy 3:15
Secondly, no where in the New Testament is it ever taught that God's holy Church would go astray from Him. Yet Adventists continue to fling this charge at the historic Church. In reality, they are charging God for not keeping His promise of keeping the Church pure and undefiled! Therefore, they willing dismiss the Scripture of the Apostle's in order to substantiate their own existence.
Conclusion:
It has been shown from Apostolic Scripture that Adventism's first proposition is unsubstantiated. The thought that God would establish a church on a movement that had founded itself on a passage of prophecy, and an obscure one at that(!), is incoherent with the New Testament's plain teaching.
It has also been shown that Adventism's second proposition is unsubstantiated as well. Why would God establish His Church on the solid foundation of His Son, and promise to keep it; then suddenly allow it to go astray from Him? Why can't we believe that Christ has remained faithful to His word, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." If the Church did go astray when the last Apostle died, then how can we trust the New Testament itself? After all, it was centuries later that the Church established in Council which writings were authentic and trust-worthy. If the Church had gone astray, don't you think She would have altered the Scripture to suit Her teaching? Why would She choose the very writings that would condemn Her?
The Adventist claim is illogical. The Church did not go astray. God has remained faithful. Christ is still Her Head.
How can the Adventist denomination be truly of God if it is founded, not on Christ Jesus Himself and St. Peter's confession of Him (Matthew 16:16), but rather on, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed"? (Daniel 8:14)
Unfortunately, I'm afraid Adventism falls within the scope of Christ's warning as recorded in Matthew 15:13,
"Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up."
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hey bud just wondering about the verse in Rev, about the harlot clothed in scarlet riding a beast making all the nations drink of the wine of her fornication?
Jeremy
Jeremy! My good and dear brother!
It's been such a long time since I've talked to you. I hope that all is well with you and Sarah and your little ones.
Ah, the "harlot" riding the "beast". Yes, of course you know as well as I do who that is. But since we haven't spoken in an age I guess I'll reiterate our mutual position in case you've forgotten it. The "harlot" of Revelation is none other than the ADVENTIST DENOMINATION! Now that that is settled...Hahaha XD
For real though, you and I both know full well that the Adventist interpretation is that the "harlot" is the Roman church. However, I do not think that that interpretation holds up very well in light of history. It was not the church of Rome that exercised dominion over the Roman empire. That honor went to the Emperor who's seat of power and authority was in Constantinople after 330. The Emperor was the king and ruler of the empire, and not the bishop of the Roman church.
As to the actual identity of the "harlot", I would have to say that I'm not sure as of this point. But I am open to ideas.
Take care brother and God bless you and yours!
Jeremy,
I've considered your question some more, and it seems to imply that the Church God founded on Pentecost would have gone astray. Though this is the typical Protestant position, I do believe that this point of view contradicts the passages I quoted in my post. Just a thought.
God bless brother!
My thoughts on the harlot riding the beast is that the harlot is apostate Israel. There are several Old Testament references where God equates Israel to a harlot. Then when you read further in Revelation you see that the harlot is a city that gets burned with fire. Jerusalem was burned with fire in 70 A.D.
Furthermore elsewhere in Revelation(rev 13) a lamb like beast is shown as having 2 horns. In the Old Testament Israel/Judah is said as having 2 horns. Furthermore, the imagery of a CLEAN beast(the lamblike one) fits Israel. Clean beasts usually are associated with Israel where as unclean ones deal with the gentile world.
So the harlor IS NOT the Roman church but rather Israel and this ties in nicely with the scope of the book of Revelation which concerned events which must SHORTLY come to pass and was for readers in THAT time period to comprehend and understand.
Also, the imagery of a harlot riding the beast fits in nicely with how Judaism used the power of the Roman government to persecute first century Christians. Read Acts to see how badly Judaism did this.
To Lex,
I went ahead and deleted your extra comments since they were identical to your first one. Blog error, I presume?
With regard to your understanding of Revelation, I find that you raise some very interesting and valid points about the "woman" and "lamb-like beast". I too see them as representing apostate Israel. Definitely worthy of further study!
It just makes too much sense that Christ would give St. John a message that would immediately benefit his fellow Christian brothers and sisters. A message that would help to explain what was really happening to them.
Take care brother, and may God's blessings always be yours!
Thank you David for a stimulating article! I, too am a former Adventist and you touch on some of the scriptural (and other) reasons why I do not believe people should join the SDA sect. Thank you!
To anonymous,
I'm glad you enjoyed the article. Perhaps you could provide a nick name so that if you stop by in the future and comment, I'll know that it was you :).
God's blessings to you!
Post a Comment