Alright I will make this as tactful as possible to not break any rules. I also will try to avoid hot button issues like Trinitarianism and Arianism although I will have to mention things in passing and those things are really important in terms of Church history.
1) Doctrinal Structural Problems with SDA
A) In a nutshell you got all these problems: 1) with Adventism, that even if that Church wants to reform to be ecumenically friendly etc. you got basic structural problems from them also holding onto to the pioneers who were less congenial when it came to the ancient Christian creeds and the language used in them. The Church eventually adopts the term "Trinity" but their Trinity is completely different in substantial ways reminiscent of problem groups of the past.
B) You got the same thing with Christology, not only that but you got a new angle where Jesus is dressed and acts like an Aaronic priest on top of that.
C)) You got a Soteriology that is Pelagian.
D) Adventists don't believe that humans don't have a spirit..
E) The ancient Church especially would take issue with their position on Sunday. Not that worshipping on Saturday is bad, but their polemical and polarized position against Sunday would put them on the bad side of things for being Schismatics and trouble makers trying to divide the body of Christ etc.
F) Lots of problematic stuff with Ellen White.
G) Lots of problematic stuff with the concept of "Present Truth". That is really bad if you study Biblical Epistemology and Doctrine, especially concerning how Seventh Day Adventist tried to implement there new revelation. The Faith has already been delivered to the Saints, and you cannot lay a new foundation down. And lots of other similar Bible passages around similar lines, especially around not causing confusion and the fact official positions of that Church received by revelation tended to change a lot which is much different than the story of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but strangely very similar to how Islam and I'm sure other revelatory faiths like LDS tended to handle things in their early days.
Anyway my point in my rambling is that according to Nicene Christianity you can't really reform a Church that is deemed heretical or unorthodox. You can't have something like "The Reformed Church of Arius", "the Reformed Church of Simon Magus". If people want fellowship or to be in communion then the group of people needs to reject all the teaching of that heretical founder to have any kind of relationship because if that isn't done the problem doctrines and fruit of the poisoned tree will follow. It also reminds me of the Biblical saying of a servant cannot serve two masters, or the passage "How can two walk together unless they be in agreement".
Thanks for reading!
1) Doctrinal Structural Problems with SDA
A) In a nutshell you got all these problems: 1) with Adventism, that even if that Church wants to reform to be ecumenically friendly etc. you got basic structural problems from them also holding onto to the pioneers who were less congenial when it came to the ancient Christian creeds and the language used in them. The Church eventually adopts the term "Trinity" but their Trinity is completely different in substantial ways reminiscent of problem groups of the past.
B) You got the same thing with Christology, not only that but you got a new angle where Jesus is dressed and acts like an Aaronic priest on top of that.
C)) You got a Soteriology that is Pelagian.
D) Adventists don't believe that humans don't have a spirit..
E) The ancient Church especially would take issue with their position on Sunday. Not that worshipping on Saturday is bad, but their polemical and polarized position against Sunday would put them on the bad side of things for being Schismatics and trouble makers trying to divide the body of Christ etc.
F) Lots of problematic stuff with Ellen White.
G) Lots of problematic stuff with the concept of "Present Truth". That is really bad if you study Biblical Epistemology and Doctrine, especially concerning how Seventh Day Adventist tried to implement there new revelation. The Faith has already been delivered to the Saints, and you cannot lay a new foundation down. And lots of other similar Bible passages around similar lines, especially around not causing confusion and the fact official positions of that Church received by revelation tended to change a lot which is much different than the story of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but strangely very similar to how Islam and I'm sure other revelatory faiths like LDS tended to handle things in their early days.
Anyway my point in my rambling is that according to Nicene Christianity you can't really reform a Church that is deemed heretical or unorthodox. You can't have something like "The Reformed Church of Arius", "the Reformed Church of Simon Magus". If people want fellowship or to be in communion then the group of people needs to reject all the teaching of that heretical founder to have any kind of relationship because if that isn't done the problem doctrines and fruit of the poisoned tree will follow. It also reminds me of the Biblical saying of a servant cannot serve two masters, or the passage "How can two walk together unless they be in agreement".
Thanks for reading!
Last edited:
