Matt Postiff's Blog

Part 4.

The fifth and final reason, for now at least, that I do not subscribe to SDA teachings, is that the writings of Ellen G. White are not equal to Scripture.

Ellen G. White (1827–1915) was a key figure in the formation of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Her writings hold enormous influence in the church, approaching the influence of Scripture, if not equal to it. The attention given to a single human author is typical of a cult or cult-like religious institution and should cause immediate skepticism among those who are evaluating the movement.

Furthermore, her writings were based on many hundreds of dreams and visions that she claimed were from God. For instance: “I am instructed that I am the Lord's messenger; that He called me in my youth to be His messenger, to receive His word, and to give a clear and decided message in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Although she says she never laid claim to be a prophet, this is the meaning of what she believed about herself and what she told others.

White wrote that "old Jerusalem never would be built up." This was understood, among other things, to mean that there would be no rebuilt Jerusalem in the millennial period of history. This is clearly a false teaching, as we know from Ezekiel and other prophecies that Jerusalem will be a focal point of the future kingdom of Christ on earth.

It is impossible for those who hold to the cessation of prophetic and other revelatory gifts to agree with her on the matter of her revelations. According to 1 Corinthians 13:8 revelatory gifts were soon to cease around the time of the Apostle Paul. The gifts have not reappeared, and will not do so until around the time of the return of Christ. In other words, whatever Mrs. White received was not from God above. It was from her own imagination, or from below. It certainly is not be a valid addition to Scripture, for anything more added to Scripture brings the curse of Revelation 22:18. And if the material of her writing is in complete agreement with Scripture, then it is superfluous and not in fact new revelation at all.

In conclusion, I agree that the principle of resting one day in seven is important. But Christians are not bound by law to keep a Saturday Sabbath.

Commemorating the resurrection of Christ is also important. But neither day is a matter of judgment or condemnation among God’s people.

Part 3.

A fourth reason that I am not an SDA is that historic Christian practice has been to worship on the first day of the week.

Traditionally, the church has always worshipped on Sunday, following the New Testament example. This was always a clear point of distinction between the Christians and the Jews.

Sunday worship can be demonstrated as the practice of the first, second, and third centuries A.D. Clearly, as we have shown in the earlier posts, there was Sunday worship in the middle of the first century. This easily predates the claim that Sunday worship started in Rome in the third century.

Early on, some Christian groups began to interpret Sunday as the “Christian Sabbath” that replaced the Jewish Saturday Sabbath. We do not agree with this approach, as it invalidly mixes two categories—Law and Church—that should be kept separate. Some churches observed the Saturday Sabbath, though this practice has waned. But in practice, this Saturday and Sunday sabbath carries over in the "weekend" of western cultures. We treat both Saturday and Sunday as special days...the normal work-week is from Monday through Friday, and Saturday and Sunday are off days so that Jews and Christians can worship unfettered by the normal weekly schedule. Secularists simply take them as days off to do what they want, which is a form of rest from their normal work pattern.

On March 3, 321 AD, Roman Emperor Constantine I decreed that Sunday would be the day of rest. For Bible Christians, however, this is irrelevant. We take our direction from Scripture, not from secular sources.

Some Christians in history worshipped on Saturday night, following the Jewish pattern that the day opens with the evening prior.

Part 5.

Part 2.

The third reason that I am not an SDA is that the Bible's teaching is that the Mosaic Law has been fulfilled.

The Law was given through Moses to the people of Israel. It was not given to Gentiles. Still, the Law is an expression of the holiness of God. But when Christ came, He came to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17). And that He did, so that those who are in Christ also fulfill the Law by virtue of being in Him (Gal. 6:2).

As a result, the Christian is not under the Law of Moses. All Christians know this intuitively because we do not keep kosher, or offer sacrifices at the (non-existent) Jerusalem temple. Christ set aside the food laws (Mark 7:19) and became the one final sacrifice for sins for all time (Hebrews 10:10). We do not travel to Jerusalem three times annually to worship God (John 4:21). The “perpetual statutes” of the offerings, priesthood, and showbread are not operational today, showing that they were not meant forever, but only for as long as God is working with the nation of Israel (Exodus 29:9; Lev. 3:17, 24:9; Numbers 19:21). Presently, the nation is under divine chastisement and will be until the millennial kingdom, when some of these rituals will be reinstituted, although in modified form.

This includes the Sabbath law. It is no longer in force and is not a matter over which one Christian is allowed to judge another. Three texts justify this conclusion. The first is Colossians 1:16 which says, “So let no one judge you…regarding…sabbaths.” I am not permitted to view myself as condemned by someone who disagrees about the proper practice of the Sabbath. In fact, I take the text to indicate that I can push back against such a judgment. The second text is Romans 14:4-5. There, the apostle teaches us that we are not to judge other servants of God. They will stand or fall before their own master, not before us. A Seventh-Day Adventist is stepping out of bounds to adjudicate a non-Sabbatarian believer to be a sinner because he does not worship on Saturday. Some people regard one day more sacred than another, and others every day alike. Each has to be fully convinced in his own mind. The third text is Galatians 5:18, which explicitly says that we are not under the law, but instead are guided by the Holy Spirit. The present age, which some call the church age or the age of the Spirit, is characterized by a new regime of the Holy Spirit, instead of a regime of a written and burdensome code that no one successfully kept or could keep, except for Jesus.

As circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, so the Sabbath was a sign of the Mosaic covenant. We are not under that covenant now (1 Cor. 9:20; Romans 6:14-15) and therefore keeping the sign is not necessary for us.

Finally, to put yourself or others under the Law is to transgress the principle of Galatians 3:10. If you wish to keep the law in one point, you must keep the entire law, lest you bring upon yourself the curse mentioned in that verse. Relying upon the works of the law is a losing proposition, for by the deeds of the law no flesh can be justified (Rom. 3:20).

Part 4.

Part 1.

The second reason that I do not adhere to the SDA interpretation of the faith is the centrality of the resurrection of Jesus to the Christian faith.

The apostles led the early church to worship on the first day of the week because the resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred on that day. As shown above, that one-time event happened on the first day of the week after the Passover holy days. This great event is the lynch-pin of the Christian faith. Without it, there is no Christianity (1 Corinthians 15:12-19). It is entirely fitting, therefore, to worship Christ on that day each week, and thus to give Christ the first part of our week.

The original creation took six days and God rested on the seventh. The new creation began on the eighth day, so to speak, that is, the first day of the following week. Christians faithfully commemorate “Easter” each and every week they worship on the first day.

Part 3.

I read a tract some time ago as to why a Seventh Day Adventist worships on Saturday. My first response to this is the Apostolic example of worshipping on the first day of the week.

1. The resurrection of Christ occurred on the first day of the week. All of the gospels are careful to note this timing: Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1, 19.

2. The disciples’ practice was to come together to break bread on the first day of the week. This was in the city of Troas in approximately 56 A.D. This was nearly a quarter century (25 years) after Jesus died and rose. Church practice had some time to settle by this point, and they were worshipping on the first day. Note that breaking bread together likely refers to the Lord’s Table service, which is worship. In any case, they met in the evening to hear preaching of the Word.

3. Around the same year, the church in Corinth evidently met on the first day of the week. This was when the apostle Paul instructed them to set aside money so that there would be money saved up for Paul’s arrival (1 Corinthians 16:2).

4. This first day of the week was also known as the Lord’s Day (Revelation 1:10). This was as late as 95 A.D., or more than 60 years (two generations) after the resurrection of Christ. The apostle John noted this day by the name of the Lord.

Part 2.

Editor's Note: This is a guest post by FBC member Vincent Brattin.

Two dogmas of the Catholic church are Mary's immaculate conception and her perpetual virginity. The first teaches that Mary herself (not Jesus) was miraculously conceived so as to be kept pure from original sin. The second is that Mary remained always a virgin and never had any other children.

These doctrines are both accepted by the Catholic church as de fide teachings, which carry the very highest level of theological certainty, and so any suspicion of doubt as to their veracity would subject the believing Roman Catholic to excommunication and anathema. Traditionally, anyway. Today, Rome is inclusivistic almost to the point of being universal, so they might not toss anyone out for anything.

One of the strange effects of all the Marian teachings of Roman Catholicism is that they force Jesus to share His singular glory with Mary. Jesus was immaculately conceived, and on their view, Mary was immaculately conceived as well. Jesus was a virgin, Mary was perpetually virgin. Jesus suffered and died on the cross, Mary shared in Jesus' suffering and nearly died at the foot of the cross. Jesus was bodily assumed to heaven, Mary is bodily assumed to heaven. Jesus is the dispenser of all graces, Mary is the one through whom those graces are dispensed. Jesus conquered death, Mary crushed the serpent, etc.

Those who believe in Sola Scriptura can appreciate Mary for exactly who she was (not immaculately conceived and not a perpetual virgin), and not swipe any of Jesus' glory, character or attributes to do so.

The International Church of Christ, www.icoc.org, is definitely a cult. The following quotation is taken from Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 12th Edition (2005) by Frank S. Mead, Samuel S. Hill, and Craig D. Atwood, p. 255-56.

Many of its former members describe it in negative terms. It was founded by Kip McKean (1955-) while serving as pastor of the Lexington Church of Christ in Massachusetts...includes intensive recruitment of members...members of the church commit themselves as disciples and to bringing new disciples into the fold. Discipling is based on a strict obedience to the "discipler." All personal decisions, including dating and marriage, are subject to the approval of the discipler. Members are expected to confess all of their sins, which may be recorded for future reference...The ICC...is not congregational in polity. All congregations are linked in a pyramid structure with McKean's Los Angeles congregation at the top. The ICC teaches that believer's baptism by immersion is necessary for salvation. Those not baptized into the International Churches of Christ are considered damned, and members are urged to sever ties with those not baptized.

Some of the above is dated now. McKean has stepped down from his original leadership role, but the troubling requirement of baptism for salvation remains, along with a high degree of control of members by leadership. Further information can be found on Wikipedia.

I received another one of those pamphlets that made me wonder, "Who is sponsoring this?" So, I had a faithful helper in the church do a little research. The title page of the pamphlet had "GLOW" and "Unlocking Revelation," and its contents advertised a "life-changing Bible prophecy seminar coming to multiple locations in SE Michigan." It referred to the website www.unlockrevelation.com and also www.glowonline.org

What we discovered was that the seminar is put on by the Seventh Day Adventists. The meeting will be held at the nearby Ann Arbor Adventist Elementary school.

I believe it would be good for advertising like this to have clear markings as to the group it comes from. True--such transparency may not enhance the popularity of the pamphlet, but it does do a lot for openness and integrity.

As far as Adventist beliefs, it is debated among evangelical Christians whether the group is a cult or not. I will not take up that question here. However, there are deep problems with Adventist doctrines, particularly their emphasis on law, Sabbatarianism, soul sleep, the prophetic gift, and the final punishment of the wicked. For at least these reasons, we certainly could not recommend attending the seminar!

Yesterday I posted a question about the Chicago Bible Students. I did receive an email back from a representative of the organization who explained a little more about them. Basically, they see themselves as true followers of the teachings of Charles Taze Russell from the pre-Rutherford version of Jehovah's Witnesses, although they claim that the JW name came into common use after some split(s) in the movement. The representative quoted extensively from Russell's writings.

This group does not believe in the deity of Christ as orthodox Christians do. My correspondent wrote:

In direct reference to Jesus, we believe Col. 1:15-18, that He was God's firstborn, the beginning of the of the creation of God, Rev. 3:14; that as the man Christ Jesus, He paid the ransom price for Adam, 1 Tim. 2:5,6; and that at His resurrection, He was given the reward of the divine nature, even as His Father, who set Him down at His right hand, Heb. 10:12.

According to their teaching, Jesus was a human who did not have a divine nature until after the resurrection. This is a false teaching that Christians must note and carefully avoid.

Back in July at the Ann Arbor Art Fair, a man collecting trash from the booths on Liberty Street gave me a pamphlet entitled "How to Study the Bible and Have it Make Sense." It is printed by the Chicago Bible Students. That group has a very nice looking website. But their name "Bible Students" seems to associate them with the Bible student movement of the Watchtower Society, that is, the Jehovah's Witnesses (Wikipedia). They claim to be totally independent and emphasize Bible reading and topical Bible study. I have inquired of them to see what they are all about.

I've had several opportunities to talk to Jehovah's Witnesses lately. To help you in working with these folks, I'm going to list below a number of questions that you could pose to them. The idea of the questions is two-fold: first, that you would reflect on how you would answer them yourself; and second, to demonstrate that many of their beliefs are highly questionable and should raise doubts in their own minds about their teaching.

1. Are you saved?
2. Are you in Christ?
3. Are you born again?
4. Are you going to heaven?
5. Are you sure of eternal life?
6. Do you know that Jesus is Jehovah?
7. Do you know that the 144,000 are Jews?
8. Are you sure your sins are forgiven?
9. How many gods are there? If one, then how do you explain the New World Translation of John 1:1?
10. Regarding the Holy Spirit, how can someone grieve an impersonal "active force"? (Ephesians 4:30)
11. Haven't Jehovah's Witnesses had a number of false time-of-the-end prophecies?
12. How many years should a person study ancient Greek before he is competent to translate the New Testament? (The NWT translation committee had only one person, Fred Franz, who knew any Koine Greek at all, and he had only two semesters.)
13. Do you think it is safe to trust your eternity to a group of people (the board of directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society) who at any time can change their minds when deciding religious matters, and in fact have already done so many times in the past?
14. Why are you willing to trust an organization that prevents you from checking out its own history?
15. Why do you claim that Jesus was nailed to a stake with his hands together, when even the NWT admits that "nails" (plural) were used? (John 20:25)
16. Why are your members strongly encouraged to shun their families who are not Jehovah's Witnesses, when the Bible says we should try to win over unbelievers through our conduct? (1 Peter 3:1)
17. [If applicable] I once had a blood transfusion. Can I still become a Jehovah's Witness? If yes, then why would I be excluded from having eternal life if I were to have another one?
18. The Bible not only speaks to us today, but also did so to its original audience. How do you think the original audience would have understood Acts 15:20, particularly the phrase "abstain from blood"? Could they really have been referring to blood transfusions, a medical procedure that would not be developed for 1,900 years?
19. The ninth Commandment reads "You must not testify falsely as a witness against your fellowman." (Exodus 20:16). Why are you following the teachings of a man (Charles Taze Russell) who claimed in court to be able to read Greek, but was actually unable to do so?
20. Why do you teach that there is no Hell--that the non-Jehovah's Witnesses who die are merely annihilated--when the Bible refers to Hell so frequently (Luke 16:19-31, Lazarus and the Rich Man, for instance)?

Credit belongs to two of our church members, Vincent Brattin and Dwayne Reid, for assisting me in compiling this list of questions.

Recently an anonymous person accused our church of being full of Bible-worshippers, by which I think they meant people who worship the Bible instead of the God of the Bible. But how they mean this is not very clear, since God's word and God Himself are so closely connected (Psalm 138:2).

Regarding the definition of Bibliolatry, I found that gotquestions.org has a helpful definition. Let me quote a couple of key parts of it here:

“Typically, the accusation of bibliolatry is used as an attack on those who hold to the inerrancy, infallibility, and supremacy of Scripture. It is often employed as an inflammatory and derogatory attack on believers who hold to ‘sola scriptura’ and/or a literal interpretation of the Bible.

“It is important to note that the charge of bibliolatry does not claim some Christians literally bow down before a Bible and worship it, as if it were an idol. While there may be some strange cult out there that literally worships the Bible, that is not what bibliolatry is referring to. The accusation of bibliolatry is that some Christians elevate the Bible to the point that it is equal with God, or to the point that studying the Bible is more important than developing a personal and intimate relationship with Jesus Christ.”

For those who make the accusation of bibliolatry against another, might I suggest some cautions? In my experience, I have found people who make such an accusation are frequently those who do not participate fully in the church's meetings and activities. That is unfortunate, because they do not see or understand the full range of what I will call godly devotion that is exhibited by the church members, and so cannot make an accurate evaluation of their spiritual character (Proverbs 18:13 comes to mind here). For instance, if the accuser only comes for the weekly meeting that is heavy on preaching and teaching, they will miss the earnest prayers of the saints in the mid-week prayer meeting. They do not have an accurate picture of the church's devotion as a whole.

Another caution for the accuser is to ensure that they are not expecting all believers to have the same kind of pietistic or emotional display of devotion that they themselves exhibit. Some believers may be more withdrawn or reserved, but be just as fervent in spirit as others who are more outgoing.

But what about the person who receives the accusation? It is easy to dismiss such a charge out of hand as blatantly false or to consider the source as a wacky believer. Both may be true, but it is profitable to stop and examine ourselves to make sure we are not pridefully exalting intellectual knowledge of doctrines (1 Corinthians 8:1) at the expense of a real personal relationship with Christ. I happened to be reading Gordon Fee earlier today and he expressed a similar thought this way from Philippians 3: “For [Paul] Christian life is not simply a matter of 'salvation' and 'ethics'; it is ultimately a matter of knowing Christ. So too with resurrection; Paul's focus is not on 'everlasting life' or anything else such. The goal of the resurrection, the 'prize' for which Paul strains every effort in the present, is Christ himself” (Paul's Letter to the Philipppians, NICNT, p. 337).

At the same time, this kind of self-examination has to be balanced with the understanding that eternal life is to know God and His Son Jesus Christ (John 17:3). Knowing God is only done through faith, and faith only comes by hearing the word of God delivered by a herald (Romans 10:13-17). Further, the word of the gospel, which the Bible is, is instrumental in our regeneration (James 1:18).

I guess what I'm saying is: Don't make the charge lightly, and don't take the charge lightly.

For some time I have been receiving a magazine called Present Truth from Life Research International. It took me some time to figure out exactly who these people were (I recall not being able to find them online some time ago). While I don't have all the details down pat, they seem to believe in the Trinity, six-day creation, the free will of man, the resurrection of Christ, and His second coming. They have an odd view of the the church, as they believe it is composed of true believers and hypocrites. They also have a strange view (almost post-millennial) of the condition of man just prior to the second coming.

My questions about this group were answered when, in Volume 10 , Number 2, the magazine published an article that promoted soul sleep, annihilation, and a repudiation of eternal Hell for unbelievers. Then in Number 3, a letter to the editor included this: "You know what I liked about your publication this time? It never did jive with me that GOD would extend hell's suffering of damnation & gnashing of teeth forever. I always ignored that type of statement. If the wrath of God upon the unrepentant causes immense pain but culminates in destruction or annihilation of the person, body and soul, that makes more sense to me & better fits the God I know."

So...beware. Here is a serious warning to stay away from these folks (Philippians 3:2, beware). They sound good in some respects, but this error is way off the charts. When people promote a self-autonomous, Bible-denying philosophy such as "it never did jive with me" and "better fits the God I know," there is a clear problem. Man has become the authority instead of the clear revelation of God.

Thanks for reading. I'm just doing my job (Romans 16:17-18, 2 Thess. 3:14, 1 Timothy 1:3, Titus 1:13).

Yes, it most definitely does. In conducting evangelism around Ann Arbor, my wife and I have heard numerous times the Mormons say "We are saved by Jesus Christ after all that we can do." This is a clever statement, but it belies the fact that the Mormons believe in a doctrine of salvation by works. They must do good works ("all that we can do"). Then, the atonement of Christ is added to that ("after").

In great contrast, we believe and teach that salvation comes to one through true faith alone, without works. In other words, "We are saved by Jesus Christ apart from all that we can do." We believe this because the Bible teaches it. Consider Ephesians 2:8-9, which says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." Also, Titus 3:5, which says, "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." Furthermore, Galatians 2:16 teaches, "knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ."

Invariably, a conversation with a Mormon will turn to the verses in James 2:14-26 that speak of the relationship of works and faith. A Mormon will use these verses to attempt to justify that works must be done in order to be saved. But those verses simply teach that true faith issues forth in works, not as a basis of salvation, but as an evidence and fruit of salvation. The theological reason for this is that Jesus Christ was the perfect once-for-all sacrifice for sin; no more "work" can be done to earn merit before God. Our works issue from a saved life because we are thankful for what Christ has worked for us.

I was in the parking lot of a store this afternoon and was approached by a young man who asked me if I would take some literature about God's love and Jesus. I looked at it--a full color brochure of several pages--and asked him what it was about. He said he was a missionary from "The Family." When I questioned him about his belief in Christ and salvation by faith alone, he seemed to say some true things. When said that I was a pastor and I indicated that I would look at their website and find out more information, he wanted me to give them a donation (even a small one, he said) to offset the cost of printing the brochure. I declined, and he wanted the brochure back, and instead gave me a little piece of paper with a message supposedly from God on it. The message emphasized God's love but says nothing about sin or Jesus' death or repentance. Jesus is simply the "key" to eternal life that one needs to receive to get in at the end of one's road.

I looked them up on the Internet at www.thefamily.org. They are known officially as The Family International and call themselves a Fellowship of Independent Missionary Communities. Their doctrinal statement looks fairly evangelical upon a first glance. However, they have a number of peculiar beliefs which the reader can find here. The beliefs of note are:

• "A believer receives a measure of the Holy Spirit when he accepts Jesus." The Baptism of the Holy Spirit "may be freely obtained by all believers who simply ask God for it, and that it is often given after the scriptural ‘laying on of hands' of other believers." It is apparently not immediately done to all believers, as 1 Cor. 12:13 teaches.
• They believe that all the spiritual gifts are operative today, including, "wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, and prophecy." All the gifts may be "freely exercised in the congregation by both male and female members."
• They believe that the gift of prophecy should be a daily exercise for believers.
• They believe that physical healing is provided for in the atonement and that God desires to restore to health those who believe in Him. (They do believe it is acceptable to seek medical assistance.)
• "God also uses the spirits of departed believers to minister to and deliver messages to His people."
• They apparently do not believe in water baptism. It is not listed alongside of the Lord's Table as an ordinance.
• They believe in the post-tribulation rapture of the church, meaning that believers will go through the Tribulation.
• They believe in communal living.

One can see by perusing our website that we do not hold to these beliefs. We believe all true saints are indwelt and baptized by the Holy Spirit upon conversion; that revelatory and other miraculous spiritual gifts have ceased in this age; that physical healing is something we may request from God but cannot expect it simply on the basis of our faith nor on the basis of Jesus' immutability and that he healed many in his earthly sojourn. We do not believe that departed spirits come back to bring us messages. Those cases in the Scripture where this occurred are extremely rare and out of the ordinary. We believe in water baptism for born-again believers; and in the pre-tribulation rapture of the church.

Today in the mail, I received a glossy trifold in the mail from the Christadelphians. I had to review what these folks believe (too many cults out there to keep track of.) But these folks are definitely a cult. Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, they do not believe God exists in three persons--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They are strictly monotheists who believe that Christ is a man, and that the Holy Spirit is the emanation of God's power. They also believe baptism is necessary in order to be saved, that souls sleep at death until (some) are resurrected, and that there is no real Hell. Clearly, these people are opposed to many of the fundamentals of the true Christian faith.

Don't be tricked by them. They claim that they can help you read the Bible more effectively. They cannot.

Other references:

What is Christadelphianism, and what do Christadelphians believe? by gotquestions.org

Is Christadelphianism Christian by Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry