Nathan Busenitz has written a brief review of Seventh Day Adventism “What is Seventh-day Adventism?” and “How should evangelicals evaluate the SDA movement?”
A seminary student recently asked me to address those questions. Today’s post gives me an opportunity to do just that.
What Is Seventh-day Adventism?
The Seventh-day Adventist church began as a distinctive movement with the teachings of a lay preacher named William Miller (1782–1849). Miller embarked on a personal study of Scripture (and particularly Daniel 8:14) which convinced him that Christ would return between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. When that prediction failed, Miller and his followers adjusted the date, determining that October 22, 1844 would be the day of Jesus’ second advent.
But the Lord did not return on October 22, 1844, and Miller’s followers (known as Millerites) experienced what they called ‘the Great Disappointment.’ Most of Miller’s followers realized his predictions had been wholly mistaken. But a small group of Millerites (from whom the Seventh-day Adventists emerged) insisted that the date he identified could not have been wrong. They claimed Miller’s error was not in his mathematical calculations, but rather in what he expected to take place on that date. Consequently, they concluded something significant occurred in 1844, even if it was not Christ’s second coming.
Phil Johnson points out the irony of establishing a religious movement on the basis of a failed prophetic prediction:
By the early 1840s, the Millerite movement had expanded into a huge international phenomenon. In one five-month span in 1843, 600,000 copies of Millerite literature were distributed in New York alone. People sold their homes, gave away their possessions, and gave up their livelihoods in order to demonstrate their faith in William Miller’s predictions.
Of course, Christ did not return—not in Miller’s lifetime; not even in that century. Miller tried adjusting his dates a time or two, but he himself gave up hope of finding a way to adjust his calculations to keep the expectation alive. He died baffled and disillusioned. He never joined the Seventh-day Adventists himself.
To this day, Adventists refer to Miller’s failed prediction of the second coming as “The Great Disappointment.” That would seem a pretty shaky foundation on which to found [a new religious movement]—a false prophecy that culminated in disappointment and worldwide embarrassment.
But out of ‘the Great Disappointment,’ the Seventh-day Adventist movement was born.
So, what do Adventists believe occurred on October 22, 1844?
According to SDA teaching, Christ is currently performing a final work of atonement and investigative judgment in heaven as the church’s great High Priest. On October 22, 1844, He moved from the heavenly Holy Place into the Holy of Holies to complete that atoning work.
The official SDA doctrinal statement explains it this way:
There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man. In it Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross. He was inaugurated as our great High Priest and began His intercessory ministry at the time of His ascension. In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry. It is a work of investigative judgment which is part of the ultimate disposition of all sin, typified by the cleansing of the ancient Hebrew sanctuary on the Day of Atonement. (Fundamental belief #24.
This creative explanation for Miller’s failed prediction was bolstered by the teachings of a young woman named Ellen Harmon (1827–1915), who reportedly began experiencing visions in 1844, shortly after the Great Disappointment. Regarded as a prophetess, Harmon (known by her married name, Ellen G. White) embarked on a prolific teaching and writing career. Her biblical interpretations and supposed revelations became the primary basis for the SDA movement.
Today there are some 18 million Seventh-day Adventists worldwide.
How Should Evangelicals Evaluate the SDA Movement?
Some evangelicals believe Seventh-day Adventism ought to be openly embraced as simply another denomination. I disagree.
Historically, evangelicals and fundamentalists regarded the Seventh-day Adventist movement as a cult. And in spite of the ecumenical spirit that has pervaded evangelicalism over the last few decades, there are still major deficiencies within official SDA theology that ought to give evangelical Christians serious pause.
Here are my three biggest concerns about SDA doctrine:
1. An Unbiblical Understanding of Christ’s Work of Atonement.
The New Testament teaches that Christ’s work of atonement was fully completed at the cross (John 19:30). After fulfilling His earthly mission, the Lord Jesus sat down victoriously at the right hand of the Father. The author of Hebrews is clear:
Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. (Heb. 10:11–14)
Any notion that Christ needed to perform an additional work of atonement in heaven (as SDA theology teaches) runs contrary to those verses, and mitigates against the once-for-all nature of His finished work on Calvary.
THERE ARE MAJOR DEFICIENCIES WITHIN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST THEOLOGY THAT OUGHT TO GIVE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS SERIOUS PAUSE.
In the Old Testament, when the high priest went into the Holy of Holies (on the Day of Atonement), he entered into the presence of God’s shekinah glory (Lev. 16:2). The SDA teaching that Christ did not enter the heavenly Holy of Holies until October 22, 1844, inaccurately implies that the Lord Jesus did not enter the glorious presence of God until that date. But that is clearly not what Scripture teaches (Acts 7:55–56; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; 1 Pet. 3:22).
Once inside the Holy of Holies, the high priests of Israel were instructed to perform their duties quickly and leave. As sinners, they were not permitted to tarry in God’s presence. But when the Lord Jesus entered His Father’s presence, He sat down (Mark 16:19; Luke 22:69; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2)—not only because He was perfect, but also because His atoning work was fully accomplished.
Through His redemptive work at Calvary, Christ provided access into the presence of God for all who belong to Him (Heb. 4:14–16; 10:19–20). The veil that separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place was torn in two at the moment of His death (Mark 15:38), not eighteen centuries later. To claim that Jesus waited until 1844 to enter a heavenly Holy of Holies undermines the full and final work of atonement He accomplished at the cross.
It should also be noted that this SDA doctrine, in which Jesus began a work of “investigative judgment” as part of His final atoning work, runs contrary to the biblical doctrine of justification by faith. Because this investigative judgment focuses on the works that Christians perform, it mitigates against the truth that believers are saved by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone.
2. An Improper Elevation of Ellen G. White as an Authoritative Prophetess.
As evangelical Christians, we look to Scripture alone as our ultimate authority. We understand that God’s Word is inspired, inerrant, authoritative, and sufficient (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16–17). Consequently, we reject any other would-be spiritual authorities that might place themselves in a position above or equal to the Bible.
Seventh-day Adventists similarly insist that the Bible is their only creed. But that assertion is called into question by their simultaneous commitment to the prophecies of Ellen G. White, which they view as authoritative for the church.
That adherence to White’s prophecies is expressed in SDA Fundamental Belief #18:
The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church.
By viewing the writings of Ellen G. White as inspired and authoritative, the SDA movement bases its doctrines on something more than Scripture alone. In practice, White’s teachings are actually placed over the Scripture because they become the lens through which the Bible is interpreted. As Geoffrey Paxton explains:
I fear very deeply that the use of Mrs. White in Seventh-day Adventism is testimony to an un-Protestant attitude toward the Bible. I fear that many Adventists have a Roman Catholic[-like] belief that the Bible is too difficult for rank-and-file Christians to understand. In place of the Bible, they turn to Mrs. White to tell them what God says. (The Shaking of Adventism, 156)
Phil Johnson states the problem even more directly:
Although most Seventh-Day Adventists will try to downplay the stress they place on Ellen White’s writings, they do in fact believe Mrs. White was divinely inspired and her books are revelations superior to every other resource and every other truth claim outside the Bible.
And since they read and interpret the Bible through the lens of Mrs. White’s supposedly inspired works, her writings in practice have a higher authority than Scripture. Scripture simply cannot be used to correct Mrs. White’s errors, because Scripture is interpreted by what she wrote.
Such constitutes an obvious problem. It is clearly less than an evangelical affirmation of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.
3. A Legalistic Emphasis on the Sabbath and Dietary Laws as Binding for Christians.
The New Testament teaches that the Mosaic Law is fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:17), and that Christians are no longer under the Old Covenant (Luke 22:20; Rom. 6:14; 2 Cor. 3:3–6; Gal. 3:24–25; Heb. 8:6, 13; Heb. 10:17–18, 29). Old Testament restrictions regarding dietary laws (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:9–16) and the observance of the Sabbath (Col. 2:16) are not binding on believers in the church age. To insist that they are, and that Christians must observe them, constitutes legalism.
The apostle Paul states this principle clearly in Colossians 2:16–17:
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day—things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
In spite of clear New Testament teaching to the contrary, Seventh-day Adventists insist on both the observance of the Sabbath (worship on Saturday) and the keeping of certain dietary laws.
Regarding the Sabbath, Fundamental Belief #20 states:
The fourth commandment of God’s unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. (Online source)
For her part, Ellen G. White taught that in the end times, those who meet on Sunday, rather than on the Sabbath, will receive the mark of the beast and therefore cannot be saved. As one SDA publication explains, the Sabbath “lies at the very foundation of divine worship,” and “the Bible reveals that the observance of Sunday as a Christian institution had its origin in ‘the mystery of lawlessness’ (2 Thess. 2:7)” (Seventh-day Adventists Believe…, 249, 260). But this runs contrary to the New Testament pattern of meeting on the first day of the week, the day on which the Lord Jesus rose from the dead (Matt. 28:1; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1–2; Rev. 1:10).
Regarding dietary laws, Fundamental Belief #22 asserts: “Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures” (Online source). The statement goes on to cite Leviticus 11 as part of its Scriptural support for this doctrinal distinctive. This is why Seventh-day Adventists are largely vegetarian.
But an insistence on Sabbath days and dietary laws smacks of the same kind of legalism that characterized false teachers in the New Testament period (cf. Col. 2:8–19; 1 Tim. 4:3–5). The Judaizers similarly insisted that Christians observe certain external aspects of the Mosaic Law (Acts 15:1, 5; Gal. 2:2–9). Paul’s response to such legalists is stated directly in Galatians 1:8–9:
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
Those are strong words. But they are not mine. They are Scripture’s assessment of any group that would add legalistic works to the gospel of grace.
Conclusion
It should be noted that Seventh-day Adventists espouse a number of other unorthodox theological distinctives (such as soul sleep [Fundamental Belief #26], the annihilation of the wicked [Fundamental Belief #27]), and (at least historically) the insistence that they are the only true church).
However, the primary issues that separate Seventh-day Adventists from biblical Christianity are (1) their unorthodox view of Christ’s work of atonement; (2) their illegitimate elevation of Ellen G. White’s prophecies; and (3) their legalistic insistence that believers are bound to observe the Sabbath and Mosaic dietary laws.
All three of these issues touch fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. It is for that reason that evangelicals ought to view SDA theology with great caution. Upon examination, its doctrinal distinctives fall short of biblical orthodoxy.
****After receiving some hostile reaction, he wrote something to clarify his concerns here.
10 Questions about Adventism by Nathan Busenitz
Last week, I posted an article (with an embedded video) about Seventh-day Adventism. As might be expected, not everyone was pleased with my perspective, and some of the responses were quite heated.
In the comments on Facebook, I was called a “counterfeit preacher,” a “Jesuit infiltrator,” an “antichrist,” “one of Satan’s forerunners,” and a “liar and the truth of God is not in him.”
While unfounded name-calling doesn’t bother me, especially on Facebook, a few of the critics complained that I had misrepresented Seventh-day Adventist beliefs. Some accused me of violating the ninth commandment, and intentionally bearing false witness about what Seventh-day Adventists believe.
Since my desire is not to bear false witness, I decided to write one more article regarding SDA doctrine. While I doubt it will appease my critics, I hope it will bring additional clarity to my previous post.
With that in mind, I would like to revisit ten miscellaneous points I made in my previous article. I will do so in the form of ten questions, with corresponding explanation and citation from various sources.
1. Did Seventh-day Adventism arise out of Millerism?
Yes. According to the Adventist author Francis D. Nichol: “We admit freely, and without the slightest embarrassment, that we grew out of the soil of Millerism” (Answers to Objections [reprint, 2014], 266–67).
2. Did early twentieth-century evangelical theologians view Seventh-day Adventism as a cult?
Yes. For example, evangelical scholars like Louis Talbot, J. K. van Baalen, Harold Lindsell, and Anthony Hoekema viewed the SDA movement as either a cult or a heretical sect. The first prominent evangelical to argue that the SDA movement was not a cult was Walter Martin (though he was highly critical of certain SDA doctrinal distinctives).
3. Do Seventh-day Adventists teach that Christ is performing a second work of atonement in heaven?
In contending that SDA is not a cult, Walter Martin argued that Seventh-day Adventists believe Christ’s atonement was fully completed at the cross, and that His current work in heaven simply involves making an application of the benefits of His atonement to individual believers. To support this assertion, Martin primarily relied on an Adventist document entitled Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, which was published in 1957.
Yet, even after Questions on Doctrine was published, not all Adventists agreed with the explanation of the atonement that it articulated. Two of the more vocal opponents were twin brothers, Russell and Colin Standish, who insisted that Ellen White actually taught that Christ’s atoning work was not completed at the cross. In their words:
Speaking of 1844, Sister White stated: “So when Christ entered the holy of holies to perform the closing work of the atonement, He ceased His ministration in the first apartment.” (GC 428) It can be seen perfectly well from this statement that Sister White does not close the atonement at the cross. She is referring, of course, to Christ’s entry into the holy of holies in 1844, to complete the work of the investigative judgment and to make atonement for the sins of His people. As we have seen, the book, Questions on Doctrine, is a most unsafe guide to Adventist doctrine, for it was written in order to please a group of Evangelicals who had no faith in the full doctrine of the atonement. (The Storm Bursts [reprint 2000], 359)
While the Standish brothers may not represent the mainline Adventist position, they do illustrate the confusion over this issue that has existed within Adventist circles—going back to Ellen White herself.
Additional statements from Mrs. White can be cited that seem to depict a second work of atonement by Christ in heaven. Here are just a few:
Today He [Christ] is making an atonement for us before the Father (Manuscript 21, 1895)
Now, while our great High Priest is making the atonement for us, we should seek to become perfect in Christ. (The Great Controversy, 623)
Attended by heavenly angels, our great High Priest enters the holy of holies, and there appears in the presence of God, to engage in the last acts of His ministration in behalf of man, —to perform the work of investigative judgment, and to make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits. (The Great Controversy, 480)
Such statements suggest that Christ’s work of atonement was not completed at the cross (cf. The Four Major Cults, 116–117).
The SDA’s official doctrinal statement, Fundamental Beliefs, describes the heavenly aspect of Christ’s work as “the second and last phase of His atoning ministry” which He began on October 22, 1844. Though described as a second phase rather than a second work, such an explanation still places an eighteen century gap between Christ’s death on the cross and the culmination of His atoning ministry. Such is problematic for reasons I noted in my previous article.
4. Does the SDA doctrine of Christ’s Investigative Judgment mitigate against the doctrine of justification through faith alone?
The SDA movement insists that it teaches salvation by grace alone through faith alone. However, evangelicals like Hoekema have questioned whether or not the doctrine of Investigative Judgment is consistent with the Reformation principles of sola gratia and sola fide. Hoekema quotes Adventist author William Henry Branson to illustrate his concern. Branson writes:
A Christian who through faith in Jesus Christ has faithfully kept the law’s requirements will be acquitted [in the investigative judgment]; there is no condemnation, for the law finds no fault in him. If, on the other hand, it is found that one has broken even a single precept, and this transgression is unconfessed, he will be dealt with just as if he had broken all ten. (Drama of the Ages, 351)
Branson’s assertion—that salvation can be lost by even one unconfessed sin—is clearly at odds with the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace alone.
Those who do not view the SDA movement as a cult (such as Walter Martin) have suggested that this emphasis on works is similar to an Arminian soteriology—in which salvation is received by grace but can be forfeited by disobedience. Yet, such explanations do not fully account for some of the legalistic emphases inherent in SDA theology (see #7 below).
5. Do Seventh-day Adventists elevate Ellen G. White as an authoritative prophetess?
Yes. Ellen White is regarded as both an inspired and authoritative prophetess. In fact, in Adventist literature she is compared to the biblical prophets. Here are several examples:
The Review and Herald, October 4, 1928: “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 was also a prophet, so we believe that Mrs. White was a prophet to the church of Christ today.”
George R. Knight, Reading Ellen White, 20: “Ellen White was acutely aware of her prophetic call and of her commission to guide Gods people through her speaking and writing. She firmly believed that God spoke through her voice and pen in the tradition of the biblical prophets.”
John J. Robertson, The White Truth, 61: “The influence of the spirit of prophecy is woven into the warp and woof of Adventist faith, life and organization . . . . What we are as a church is a reflection of our faith in the divine authority evident in the writings of Ellen G. White.”
SDA Fundamental Belief #18: “The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church.”
6. Do Seventh-day Adventists say that Ellen G. White is an authority equal to or greater than Scripture?
Seventh-day Adventists insist that the Bible is their only creed.
But that claim is difficult to reconcile with their simultaneous commitment to Ellen White’s prophecies as being both inspired and authoritative. After all, she is regarded as a prophet like Samuel or Jeremiah.
That is why, in practice, some Seventh-day Adventists place White’s prophecies over the Bible because they use her as an authoritative lens through which to interpret the Bible.
Though he views it negatively, Seventh-day Adventist historian George R. Knight recognizes that this reality exists in SDA circles:
Some Adventists have seen Ellen White as an infallible Bible commentator in the sense that we should use her writings to settle the meaning of Scripture. Thus one of the denomination’s leading editors could write in the Review and Herald in 1946 that “the writings of Ellen G. White constitute a great commentary on the Scriptures.” He went on to point out that they were unlike other commentaries in that they were “inspired commentaries, motivated by the promptings of the Holy Spirit, and this places them in a separate and distinct class, far above all other commentaries” (RH, June 9, 1946). (Reading Ellen White, 25)
Elsewhere, Knight adds:
Too many Adventists have tended to put Ellen White in the place of Jesus. He, not Ellen White, is our example. To shove Ellen White’s example to the forefront of our religion is cultic rather than Christian. (Ibid., 52)
Former Seventh-day Adventists similarly testify to the elevated devotion to Ellen G. White they observed when they were part of the SDA movement. Here is just one example:
Henry E. Neufeld, When People Speak for God (2007), 109: Because I grew up in the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church, I have had a lifelong interest even in modern prophetic writings and their authority in particular communities. SDAs have Ellen G. White whose voluminous writings are regarded as authoritative by the vast majority of church members. They would not call this an addition to the canon of Scripture, though with many it is hard to tell the difference. After I was no longer an SDA myself, I recall getting involved in the peripheries of an argument. One person peppered me with Ellen White quotations even though she knew I was no longer a church member. She then offered to send me a compilation of even more such statements. She treated Ellen White as part of the canon, not only authoritative for her personally, but also for me.
Accounts like that have led some evangelical observers to note that the Adventist commitment to Ellen White’s prophecies represents a departure from the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura. To cite Anthony Hoekema again:
Though Seventh-day Adventists claim to test Mrs. White’s writings by the Bible, they insist that the gift of prophecy which she possessed, and with which she therefore enriched their group, is a mark of the “remnant church.” This means that this gift sets the Seventh-day Adventists apart from all other groups. But other Christian groups also have the Bible. What, therefore, sets the Seventh-day Adventists apart is what they have in addition to the Bible, namely, the gift of prophecy as manifested in Mrs. White. But if they test Mrs. White’s writings by the Bible, as they say, and if the Bible is really their final authority, what do they really have which sets them apart from other groups? It is quite clear at this point that Seventh-day Adventists do not really test Mrs. White’s writings by Scripture, but use them alongside of Scripture, and find in their use a mark of distinction that sets them apart from other groups. (Four Major Cults, 104)
7. Do Seventh-day Adventists insist on the necessity of Saturday (Sabbath) worship?
Yes. They teach that the Fourth Commandment is binding on Christians today. Fundamental Belief #20 states:
The fourth commandment of God’s unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath.
For Seventh-day Adventists, worshiping on Saturday is not a matter of Christian liberty (cf. Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:17). It is seen as a binding requirement on all believers.
On the one hand, Seventh-day Adventists deny that keeping the Sabbath is a way of earning salvation. At the same time, however, they teach that knowingly breaking the Sabbath (as with any of the Ten Commandments) will prevent one’s entrance into heaven. As Adventist author Francis Nichol explains: “[We] conclude that although Sabbathkeepping cannot secure us admission into heaven, Sabbathbreaking will certainly prevent our entrance” (Answers to Objections, 248).
From the perspective of many evangelicals, the SDA position constitutes an unbiblical form of legalism, in which Sabbath-keeping is seen as necessary for maintaining one’s salvation. In the words of Harold Lindsell:
If men now or later must keep the Sabbath to demonstrate their salvation or to prevent their being lost, then grace is no more grace. Rather, we are saved by grace and kept by works. (“What of Seventh-day Adventism,” 15; cf. Hoekema, Four Major Cults, 126)
8. Did Ellen G. White teach that Sunday worship is the mark of the beast?
Yes. However, I did have to edit my earlier article on that point. White’s teaching was that the mark of the beast would be received by those in the end times who worshiped on Sunday. In the meantime, those who worship on Sunday now are not condemned (at least not until they come to understand the obligation to observe the Sabbath on Saturday).
To cite Ellen White:
No one has yet received the mark of the beast. The testing time has not yet come. There are true Christians in every church, not excepting the Roman Catholic communion. None are condemned until they have had the light and have seen the obligation of the fourth commandment. But when the decree shall go forth enforcing the counterfeit sabbath, and the loud cry of the third angel shall warn men against the worship of the beast and his image, the line will be clearly drawn between the false and the true. Then those who still continue in transgression will receive the mark of the beast. (Evangelism, 234–235; Cf. The Great Controversy, 449)
In The Great Controversy, White further underscores the importance of Sabbath from the SDA perspective:
The enemies of God’s law, from the ministers down to the least among them, have a new conception of truth and duty. Too late they see that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seal of the living God. Too late they see the true nature of their spurious sabbath and the sandy foundation upon which they have been building. They find that they have been fighting against God. Religious teachers have led souls to perdition while professing to guide them to the gates of Paradise. Not until the day of final accounts will it be known how great is the responsibility of men in holy office and how terrible are the results of their unfaithfulness. Only in eternity can we rightly estimate the loss of a single soul. Fearful will be the doom of him to whom God shall say: Depart, thou wicked servant. (The Great Controversy, 640)
9. Do Seventh-day Adventists teach the doctrines of soul sleep and annihilationism?
One Facebook commentator, who self-identified as a Seventh-day Adventist, offered this retort to my video: “Doctrine of annihilation and soul sleep? Where did he pull that out of ? Never heard of it. I can tell he never step[ped] foot in a seventh day Adventist church lol.”
Since the objection was raised, I thought it might be worth noting that both of those doctrines are taught in the official Seventh-day Adventist doctrinal statement (though using different terminology). Regarding soul sleep (the unconscious state of the dead prior to the resurrection), Fundamental Belief #27 states, “Until that day death is an unconscious state for all people.”
Regarding the annihilation of the wicked and conditional immortality (that punishment in hell will be temporary because immortality is conditional and given only to believers), Fundamental Belief #28 states, “The unrighteous dead will then be resurrected, and with Satan and his angels will surround the city; but fire from God will consume them and cleanse the earth. The universe will thus be freed of sin and sinners forever.” (See also Fundamental Belief #9.)
10. Is Seventh-day Adventism a cult?
As noted above, there is disagreement among evangelicals as to what label ought to be used to describe the SDA movement. Those looking for both sides of the issue may be interested to read Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin (which argues that SDA is not a cult) and The Four Major Cults by Anthony Hoekema (which argues that it is).
As for me, my view of Seventh-day Adventist doctrine is more negative than positive. Consequently, I stand by my conclusion in last week’s article:
The primary issues that separate Seventh-day Adventists from biblical Christianity are (1) their unorthodox view of Christ’s work of atonement; (2) their illegitimate elevation of Ellen G. White’s prophecies; and (3) their legalistic insistence that believers are bound to observe the Sabbath and Mosaic dietary laws.
All three of these issues touch fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. It is for that reason that evangelicals ought to view SDA theology with great caution. Upon examination, its doctrinal distinctives fall short of biblical orthodoxy.