While listening to a video of "Ready to Harvest" (a great neutral viewpoint denomination YouTube channel), he said something very briefly that made it sound like Seventh-Day Adventists don't believe in hell, which I wasn't aware of, I was only aware of their view of soul sleep. So for clarification, what is the SDA view of hell?

I've been thinking recently, there are a number of famous theologians and apologists who, despite belonging to some particular denomination or another, are recognized widely by Christians of other denominations as good thinkers or teachers. For instance, Tim Keller (Presbyterian), Karl Barth (Swiss Reformed), C.S. Lewis (Anglican), Blaise Pascal (Catholic), and many others. **I am wondering if there are any Seventh Day Adventist thinkers who have a positive reputation as theologians or apologists outside of their own denomination.** I would not be surprised if the answer were "no" given that Seventh Day Adventist Church is relatively new and usually regarded as on the fringes of orthodoxy by other Christian churches. However, if there are any examples, I would love to learn about them for the sake of improving my relationships with friends in the SDA.

**God Names**
It is often heard from Seventh Day Adventists that they give a reason for not worshipping on Sunday because "it carries the name of the Sun god." But is this reasoning a valid one for deciding to worship on Saturday? A study of the names of the week confuses this logic. Sunday may (or may not) be the name of a sun god, but Saturday was named after the god/planet, Saturn! And in northern Europe the rest of the days of the week do also reflect the names of ancient gods: Woden (Wednesday), Thor (Thursday), Frei Friday) etc. Would this mean worship would not be allowed on those days? And in Hispanic countries, the weekend days are called "Sabado, Domingo". That is 'sabbath" and "the LORD'S DAY"! So in Spanish, what we call Sunday in English, is referred to, when translated, as *a day belonging to the Lord* ***for worship.*** [And many cultures do set aside that day for worship.] So would simply a name of the week in just a few languages be one legitimate or valid reason enough "to accept or reject" worshipping on that day?

Congregations such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists believe that Jesus is Michael. What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Jesus is Michael? **Jehovah's Witnesses** >...it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role. [Source](http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel/) **Seventh-day Adventists** >Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, "The Lord rebuke thee." Early Writings, p. 164.

I recently came across the idea of identifying the angel Michael as Jesus. I'm surprised I hadn't heard it before. Wikipedia documents it as common to Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm not interested in biblical support of this theory; there are several other questions in that vein with good answers. I'd like to know more of its origin. Sub-questions to help guide what I'd consider a good answer: - How old is this idea? Wikipedia says "early Protestants", but cites John A. Lees (1939) who in turn cites Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg (1849) who doesn't appear to have a source beyond himself. They are far too recent to be "early Protestants". - Who (or what group) came up with the idea? - If it started with the adventists , how did it spread to Jehovah's Witnesses? - Do any orthodox forks* of Christianity accept the idea? - Do any orthodox forks* of Christianity explicitly reject the idea? (I'm surprised not to see it mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia.) \* **fork**: picture the christian religion as a road. Way back, promoters of Arianism were a fork in the road that dead ended fairly quick. The Protestants led many forks in the road. Mormons are yet another fork in the road. EDIT: Re: "early protestants". I just found a reference by John Calvin in his Commentaries on Daniel vol. 2, pg 243 . > Some think the word Michael represents Christ, and I do not object to > this opinion. [...] But as this is not generally admitted, I leave it > in doubt for the present [...] and there's a bit more in chapter 12 , but so far I haven't found who he is referencing by "some". Calvin does go on to defend associating Michael with Christ.

I know the Seventh Day Adventist church is known for following certain Old Testament laws found in Leviticus such as the food/dietary laws. However I'm also under the impression that they don't follow all 600+ Levitical laws either. Is there a reason why they follow certain Levitical laws like food/dietary but don't follow others, such as wearing clothing made of two different materials (Lev 19:19) or cutting the hair at the sides (Lev 19:17)? To what extent do they keep the laws?

I'm from Brazil (we speak Portuguese language) and with help of translating tools I've translated the following paragraphs to ask my question. The question is related to Ellen White prophecies. > The time is not far distant when the test will come to **every soul**. The > **observance of the false sabbath** will be **urged upon us**. The contest > will be between the commandments of God and the commandments of men. > Those who have yielded step by step to worldly demands and conformed > to worldly customs will then yield to the powers that be, rather than > subject themselves to derision, insult, threatened imprisonment, and > death. At that time the gold will be separated from the dross. True > godliness will be clearly distinguished from the appearance and tinsel > of it. Many a star that we have admired for its brilliance will then > go out in darkness. Those who have assumed the ornaments of the > sanctuary, but are not clothed with Christ's righteousness, will then > appear in the shame of their own nakedness. (Prophets and Kings, p. 181) > 16, 17 (Daniel 3:1-18; see EGW on 1 John 2:18). History Will Be > Repeated—History will be repeated. False religion will be exalted. The > first day of the week, a common working day, possessing no sanctity > whatever, will be set up as was the image at Babylon. **All nations and > tongues and peoples will be commanded to worship this spurious** > **sabbath**. This is Satan's plan to make of no account the day instituted > by God, and given to the world as a memorial of creation. > > The decree enforcing the worship of this day is to go forth to all the > world. In a limited degree, it has already gone forth. In several > places the civil power is speaking with the voice of a dragon, just as > the heathen king spoke to the Hebrew captives. (EGW SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 7, p. 976.8) Then all nations will be Christian before this decree, because it is not possible for them to impose something that only makes sense to Christian without being Christian. One side note about sabbath violation: it's only a violation if another day is worshiped in place of sabbath. If it's just a day for resting, then it is not a violation (not a worship). Another observation I'm making is: I'm calling Christian people in the broad sense (I'm not making any difference if they follow or not the 10 commandments perfectly). I'm assuming that if people that say that they believe in Jesus, then they are indeed Christian (even if they make mistakes about God's commandments). **"All nations and tongues and peoples will be commanded to worship this spurious sabbath.**" says "**all nations**" and **makes no exceptions**. And this worship of a false sabbath comes from a Christian point of view. If that worship comes from a catholic influence, then it is a Christian, and if it is enforced by the state (nation), it makes the nation Christian. Understand? One thing implies another. So this is the reason I'm trying to explain that all nations must be adopting the Christianity officially. That means democracy all around the world and no more states of muslim and any other religion? - No more North Korean dictators - China will officially adopt Christianity - No more muslim countries (today it is over 50) - etc... Another 2000 years to wait? Don't get me wrong, I believe in most prophecies of EGW, but it seems like will take time to see it happening.

*Let me preface my question by saying that my knowledge of the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) position on the future of ethnic Jews is limited. Perhaps that position has been fully fleshed out and explained somewhere, and I just failed to find it. If you can post a link or resource that thus makes answering my question unnecessary, feel free to do so. Likewise, if my understanding of the SDA position on the subject (as stated below) is inaccurate, please feel free to correct it before (or even instead of) answering the question.* Based on my knowledge/understanding of the SDA position on the subject, Adventists believe that: 1. Jews will **not** be saved "as a nation" (although **individual** Jews will be saved, as the Jews irreversibly lost their position as a "people of God" when they rejected their Messiah by giving up Jesus to be crucified under Pontius Pilate and failed to repent of that rejection during the apostolic ministry of the first century, the Jewish nation was consequently rejected by God which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 and scattering of the Jews among the nations in fulfillment of Daniel 9:26); 2. The blessing of being a "people/nation of God" was essentially "transferred" (though a different, "weaker" verb may be used here) to the Church of Jesus Christ where a person's ethnic background is no longer a factor in anything that has to do with obtaining/enjoying any special spiritual blessing or prophetic distinction. In other words, being a Jew (following national Jewish rejection that occurred nearly two millennia ago) makes no difference thenceforth (either now or in the future) as far as God's Kingdom in general and the economy of salvation in particular is concerned. While I can readily see *qualified* scriptural support for the second position (e.g., Paul's words "**There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus**," Galatians 3:28) — "qualified" because I think that most Christians who would quote this verse here would also disagree with the kind of interpretation of this and similar verses that obliterates the distinctions of "biological sex," "social-economic status," or "ethnic background" as such — I'm having a hard time reconciling the first position with the rest of the teaching of the Bible. - For one, the Ap. Paul himself seems to believe in a "reversal" of the rejection of the Jews that is to "follow" salvation of the "fullness" of the Gentiles. Important, he does so by relying on and even quoting some OT prophecies (like those in Hosea and Amos) applying them to "latter days" in the earth's history. In Romans (11:25-31) he writes: >**For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.** - Further, the book of the Revelation — which SDA is usually big on expounding (except perhaps on this point) — that relates, according to SDA own beliefs, many **future** events makes repeated references to both "Jews" and "Gentiles" which would make it at least somewhat illogical to hold that the ethnic distinctions between the two were obliterated to the point of complete obsolescence, as SDA seems to hold (at least as it pertains to matters spiritual). For example, when John records the famous scene of the 144,000, their tribal affiliation is painstakingly included — though the order and the composition of the list differ from other renditions of the list, a separate issue — and, in our view, cannot be simply disregarded as "poetical" or "allegorical" language (Revelation 7:2-8): >**And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nepthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand.** Not only that, following those verses, when the "great multitude" is described, their "ethnic" (meaning "non-Jewish" in light of the previous verse) background is also explicitly noted (Revelation 7:9): >**After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;** Verses like these in Revelation are in full harmony with eschatological OT passages (like those in Isaiah) that continue to refer to Israel alongside Gentile nations while speaking of what happens in the "end." Needless to say, such references lose meaning if we "spiritualize" the terms "Israel" and "Judah" to mean "multi-ethnic Church." To summarize, it appears that: - Although we can scripturally maintain a certain loss of significance of Jewish ethnic affiliation following the rejection of Jesus Christ and Israel's failure to repent of that act "as a nation" 20 centuries ago, - It seems difficult (if not impossible) to maintain that that loss: a) is permanent and b) has resulted in complete obsolescence of spiritual/prophetic significance of Jewish ethnic background (however we may define it while accounting for the legitimate prospect of a Gentile "becoming a Jew" outlined in the OT scriptures, e.g., Ruth the Moabite) in light of verses that suggest that the rejection of ethnic Jews was to be "temporary" until "fullness of the Gentiles come in" and both "Jews" and "Gentiles" seem to feature (distinctly if not separately) in the future prophetic narrative. I realize that there is a separate issue of "fullness of Gentiles" being come in and "all Israel" being saved that will need to be addressed and reconciled with relevant points of the SDA teaching as well, but I'd leave that for another question. On the final note to this long rendition of my question, I did consult one online SDA resource that seems to acknowledge some of the OT prophecies (obviously relied on by the Ap. Paul) that predict return of the Jews to salvation in the "end days," but such references don't appear to displace the overall SDA belief that goes along with "replacement" theology that the SDA Church (along with many others) otherwise seems to espouse.

I want to ask my Seventh-Day Adventist friends about their view of the Trinity. I was listening this morning to one of your preachers. He said that EGW never refers to the Trinity but is adamant there are three Persons in the Godhead. To me, it sounded as if the speaker was not presenting the traditional Trinity doctrine. - The Eusebians (the so-called Arians) said that the three Persons are three Centers of consciousness (three distinct Minds or Wills). - In contrast, in the Trinity doctrine, there is only one Being and only one Center of consciousness. Therefore, in the traditional Trinity doctrine, as RPC Hanson indicates, the term Person is inappropriate: > “In the place of this old but inadequate Trinitarian tradition the > champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a > Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, > three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the > misleading word' Person'), three ways of being or modes of existing as > God.” (Hanson ) I think I read somewhere that the SDA statement of beliefs says, "God is one and three." My question is: In what respect is He three and in what respect is He one? Specifically, is He three or one in terms of Consciousness (Mind, Will). - The Eusebians said 3. - Alexander and Athanasius said that the Logos is the Father's ONLY Logos and Wisdom. In other words, they taught one single Consciousness. - Modern Social Trinitarianism also argues for 3. The reason I prefer to refer to Consciousness is that all of the other terms are potentially understood differently by different people: - The Eusebians used ‘hypostasis’ for a distinct existing Reality, and therefore for a distinct existing Centre of Consciousness, but the traditional Trinity doctrine teaches one single Being, and therefore, one single Consciousness, in three hypostases. - As indicated, in the traditional trinity doctrine, ‘Person’ is often used mistakenly for the hypostases. - Ousia (substance, being) can potentially be a fairly clear term, for one Being implies one Consciousness, but I still prefer 'Consciousness' for clarity. So, I would really like to understand whether the SDA teaches one or three Consciousness. Response to CuriousDannii ----------------------- Below, CuriousDannii comments: > What does a "center" of consciousness mean? In the traditional > Trinitarian understanding, God has only one faculty of mind, which > could probably be said to act in three centers of thinking. Indeed, > distinguishing between "faculty" and "center" could be a quite helpful > way of explaining the traditional doctrine of God, but it's probably > not the way you are using "center" here. I would like to respond as follows: Ayres describes “three ‘**centres of consciousness**’” as “three potentially separable agents … the contents of whose ‘minds’ were distinct.” (LA, 296) Hanson refers to the modern theory of social trinitarianism as “the too popular modem theory that God is three persons in our modern sense, i.e. three **centres of consciousness**.” (RH, 737) One ‘Centre of consciousness’ is one ‘Faculty of mind’; one Mind and one Will. I also like the term ‘Faculty of mind’ but the one used by scholars is ‘Centre of consciousness’. With three “centres of consciousness” we have the potential of disagreement between them, and the unity between the Father, Son, and Spirit is one of will; not of substance. For example, when Jesus said, "Your will and not mine.” For me, that is evidence of two centres of consciousness being one in will. The benefit of this term is that the term “Person” is understood differently by different people. The Three in the traditional Trinity doctrine are sometimes mistakenly referred to as “Persons” but the Three are not “Persons” in the ordinary sense of that word. In the traditional Trinity doctrine, ‘God’ has only one faculty of mind and, therefore, is only one single “centre of consciousness.” People hide behind confusing terms like soldiers attacking from hiding a smokescreen. I am trying to use alternative and non-traditional terms that are generally well understood. Response to Bluephlame ---------------------- Below, in a comment, Bluephlame refers me to an atsjats document . Atsjats docs are always worth reading. Interestingly, this document admits that the SDA pioneers were not Trinitarians. Unfortunately, this article suffers from the assumption that there is only one Trinity doctrine. In fact, there are many different Trinity doctrines. See, for example, Dale Tuggy’s podcasts . Non-Trinitarians such as Samuel Clarke also refer to the Trinity, but then they mean a group of Three. That is why I always refer to the "traditional" Trinity doctrine to distinguish it from other types of Trinity doctrines. I find the quote from Fundamental Beliefs confusing. It talks about three "Persons," which implies three ‘Minds’, but then uses the singular pronoun "He" to refer to “God;” a unity of three co-eternal Persons. This implies one single ‘Mind’. So, my question remains, do you believe in three Minds or one Mind? When I put this question to an SDA professor, he said I must just believe. But how can I believe that which I do not understand? To whom do I pray?

Did Ellen White say that the book of Hebrews was written by Paul? According to the Seventh-day Adventist Commentary, the book of Hebrews has many differences compared to Paul's other writings.

The Jehovah witness and Seventh Day Adventist denominations believe that Jesus is the arch-angel Michael. The reasons for this belief is based on the Biblical verses that Jesus will shout with the voice of the arch-angel at the end of the age, Gabriel refers to him as a prince, "except Michael your prince"(Dan 12:1), so does Isaiah(Isaiah 9:6-"Prince of Peace"). Since there is only one chief angel in heaven and there is no such thing as **Jesus' angels** and **Michael's angels** then it follows that Jesus is the arch-angel Michael , but if the later is true then any angel even the arch-angel was created and hence Jesus being created means he is not God. This is because it's very hard to disprove the belief that Jesus and Michael are two different entities. ## Michael nematology ## The word Michael means **One Who is like God**, an attribute that can only be claimed by Jesus ## Jesus as Commander of Heaven's armies ## Only a leader or a commander of the angelic armies in heaven would command them to his defense. **Mathew 26:53** >Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? Angels ministering to their their arch-angel who in this case is Jesus **Mathew 4:6** >Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him. ## End Time Prophecy Regarding Lucifer ## It is commonly believed by many Christians that the devil will masquerade as Jesus to deceive many into false worship and the term that's been used here is to fake as an angel of light **2 Corinthians 11:14** >Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light If it's Jesus that Satan is trying to fake his second coming then Jesus has been referred to as an angel of light How do Trinitarians respond to this?

Because of their Sabbath day standards, and unique lifestyle, my question is: Is 7th Day Adventistism considered an orthodox Christian faith?

> Daniel 11:1 New American Standard Bible
In the first year of > Darius the Mede, I arose to be an encouragement and a protection for > **him**. In my own interpretation, the speaker is Jesus and the "him" is an angel named Michael. From the internet I know that the Seventh-day Adventist holds that Michael = Jesus (or vice versa, Jesus = Michael). Hence, my interpretation is wrong in the point of view of Seventh-day Adventists. I've already tried to search in the internet to find out how Seventh-day Adventists interpret Daniel 11:1... but I can't find one. I did find some articles about Daniel 11 from (I think) the point of view of Seventh-day Adventists, but it either starts from Daniel 11:2 or Daniel 11 as a whole. So I put my question here.

For anyone who adheres to an understanding that the soul is mortal. What does "spirit" and "mind" refere to in Philippians 1:27 (NET): > [...] I should hear that you are standing firm in *one spirit*, with *one* > *mind*, by contending side by side for the faith of the gospel,

One of the fundamental beliefs of the SDA is the belief in ([Spiritual Gifts and Ministries No 17](https://www.adventist.org/spiritual-gifts-and-ministries/)) but what is intriguing is whenever they list these gifts in their commentaries the gift of tongues is always conspicuous by its absence from the list. The gift of tongues is clearly articulated as one of the gifts of the church in the New Testament Mark 16:17 ESV >17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; Acts 2:4 ESV >4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. 1 Corinthians 12:10 esv > 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. Why does the SDA seem to sideline this gift?

Both churches are what they call "Sabbath keepers". What are the main differences in doctrine between the Seventh Day Adventist Church and the Worldwide Church of God, now known as Grace Communion International ?

My children attend a Seventh Day Adventist school. One teacher often mentions that 'people who go to church on Sunday will go to hell'. Is this consistent with Seventh Day Adventist belief?

I was reading the Mishnah and I came across this article which says it is unlawful to read secular material during the Sabbath but one is allowed to read only the written law and the oral law(after it was written down) Shabbat 23/2 >Introduction This mishnah has to do with reckoning certain types of accounts on Shabbat. A man may count his guests and his appetizers/desserts by word, but not from writing. A host may want to count his guests or his food before or while the meal is being served. He may do so but he may not count them from a written list. The Tosefta explains that this is forbidden because it is acting on Shabbat the way one acts during the week. In the Talmud they explain that if he reads from a written list and sees that someone is not there or hears that they are not coming, he may erase their name from the list, a prohibited activity on Shabbat. ***Alternatively, he may grow accustomed to reading bills, lists and other types of business documents that a person should not read on Shabbat*** Seeing that the SDA are keen observers of the Sabbath day/Shabbat,Is this law also binding to the present day Adventist?

According to the SDA interpretation of Daniel 9 the seventy weeks terminate in AD34. Daniel 9:26 New King James Version (NKJV) >26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall [a]be cut off, but not for Himself; ***And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary***. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined. Im interested especially in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary which according to them(SDA) fell during this period. Does the destruction of the city and sanctuary take place during this period in time. How can we understend this interpretation?

This question is connected to this question and this question . As the title mentioned, I'm not expecting an answer which use name of the days in the week (such as Saturday, Sunday, etc)... but the N(th) day of the week (for example the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc). If I myself answer my own question independently (not using the point of view from anyone), the "based" I use first is :
*Jesus resurrection is in the 1st day of the week, the third day after His body put in the tomb*. Then counting backward:
the 7th day of the week is the second day after His body put in the tomb.
the 6th day of the week is the first day after His body put in the tomb.
So, (my own conclusion) Jesus died on the 5th day of the week. Why I ask specific to the Adventist, because : 1. One Adventist member in a Christian Forum in my language say "Friday" is the day when Jesus died at the cross. But he can't answer it when I ask him to answer with the N(th) day of the week, not the name of the days. 2. I can't find in the internet about my question which specifically mentioned it comes from the Adventist. 3. The articles I found in the internet is not clear coming from what denomination and they have different answer using the name of the days.