Adventists, Righteousness by Faith and Unity

As an Seventh-day Adventist, I was taught righteousness by faith growing up. Then when I married and compared my experience with my husband’s, something seemed wrong. His Adventist childhood was dark and scary. When I started

questioning other Adventists, I began to realize that I was the exception, not him. Most kids were raised to believe that they had to fulfill Ellen White’s moral and theological expectations in order to make you right with God and get to heaven. 

Therefore, I began looking into the actual SDA doctrine and discovered it did preach righteousness by sabbath-keeping. 

My parent’s grace-oriented spin on the SDA church had colored even the programming of all my years in the elementary, secondary and university Adventist school system. I knew what the church taught, but I had always seen everything through the eyes of grace and I guess I had just ignored Ellen’s more strident works-

righteousness writings as unenlightened white noise.

So, the subject of righteousness by faith became more important to me as I wrote our book, “It’s Okay Not to be a Seventh-day Adventist” even though works-righteousness hadn’t been my personal SDA experience.

But Adventists are not blatantly teaching works-righteousness now. While EGW’s writings are full of lists of things you don’t do to get to heaven, this new generation of SDA youth are not interested in theological technicalities. They are learning a new, improved Ellen-lite and if they are getting righteousness by faith and, as they insist, the other stuff is non-salvific, then hey, God bless ‘em their on the road to recovery!  

So, even though it is of monumental import, when I speak to Adventists I tend to bring up other issues first rather than righteousness by faith because frankly many of them truly understand it and those that don’t really think they do, so it seems more helpful to take another approach rather than argue that one. That is why I don’t get into the righteousness by faith argument with Adventists, which is often criticized by former SDAs.

For my conversations with Adventists, there are other issues that can break down walls of misunderstanding

between them and other mainstream Christians. Here is one:

Unity

The things that got to me personally, that hurt my conscience so badly that I left, had more to do with the SDA position on abortion, it’s distortion of history and it’s unbiblical doctrines.  But one more issue that I often do not discuss online but am making an effort to in the last couple of years is the issue of the SDA church distancing itself from other Christians. This lack of unity with and fear of other Christians was not only ignoring a command of Christ, it was eating us up (when I was SDA) as a people. We were so focused on preaching and teaching sabbath that we were not noticing that our families were falling apart.

Growing up in the 1970’s, my generation was a mess with drugs, sex, rock and roll. The SDA church didn’t speak out clearly on things that were destroying so many people I loved: pornography, drugs, rebelliousness, depression, confusion, divorce, abortion, sexual promiscuity. SDA youth were silently screaming for some adult to notice that they were miserable and even doing harm to themselves to get someone to help. Instead of acting to save their children SDA parents became passive victims with hand-wringing and glazed-over eyes and reverted into some catatonic paralysis assuming their children were the most target by the devil because they were the remnant. Or they would uncomfortably laugh and dismiss it as teenage drama. 

As long as kids were in church on Sabbath, no one was courageously saving them from pre-marital sex, drugs, misery, hopelessness....But even as a kid I knew that a church should do some saving, and what I saw was SDA kids crisis being ignored and their souls being sacrificed on the altar of SDA doctrine and culture.

And I didn’t accept it.  

As I read books by Focus on the Family and other Christian writers, I realized that we could use a huge dose of their wisdom. I wondered why our church couldn’t unify with other denominations on issues where we clearly taught the same doctrines? Yes, we had the sabbath truth, and we would go to martyrdom rather than worship on Sunday, but what about the ills plaguing our culture?

Something was wrong with this because the New Testament taught a “oneness” for Christians. Unity was a commandment of Christ just as other commandments, how did we explain tossing that one out just because we differed on the Sabbath.

Couldn’t we have joined with other Christians to combat the massive drug plague destroying our children? What about all the sexual abuse I knew about among SDA kids? What about divorce? Why didn’t we come together with other churches to have Marriage Encounters with them? When the Promise Keepers movement was popular, why couldn’t our church unify with that group instead of making a different group, calling ourselves Adventist Men (Amen)? 

And hey, while we are learning from them, we would be creating great opportunities for sharing the Sabbath truth!


Yet, we were made to fear them as potential deceivers. I blamed our elitism and fear on our inability to get help from other Christians. Oh, I knew that someday they would turn on us and

persecute us....but until that time, didn’t we want to be witnessing among them? Yet, we stayed aloof. At least the vast majority of us did. I knew the Religious Liberty arm of the SDA church would enter a “friend of the court” brief if a person’s religious liberty was threatened....but nothing to  embrace other Christians that was church-wide and substantial.


Over the years I yearned more and more for unity with my other brothers and sisters in Christ. What were we afraid of? It really puzzled me. Didn’t we trust God enough to go into the “world” of other Christians to love them? 

Then, it was brought up at the 2000 General Conference in Toronto. A person stood and asked if the doctrines of the SDA church could include other sabbatarian or other church groups as part of the “remnant” people spoken about in Revelation. It was debated on the floor and it was voted with a large majority that the SDA church’s doctrines would remain that we are the “sole remnant” people of God.

This shouldn’t have been so surprising to me, but it was a huge blow. I remember throwing myself down upon the ground arms outspread and crying out to God, weeping in repentance for my church. Inside, I knew we were not the sole remnant and the pride of saying such was keeping us from growing spiritually as a church and healing our family wounds. 

The SDA Church could never address the problems of the members, because she alone was the true remnant and that position kept her from seeking help from other churches. I knew that was a thoroughly unbiblical position. 

This wasn’t a new problem, this prideful exclusivity was a wickedness that formed the very basis of Adventism. And to see your church crumble before your eyes is a terrible thing for anyone to go through.

If the world was to know who the Christians were by their love one for another, then Adventism--the doctrines-- couldn’t be truly Christian, for we taught fear of other Christians. And love casts out fear.

Sigh…

Behind a great deal of my ministry to former Adventists is to gently show them the degree of separation they have had from the full Body of Christ and how evil it is that they have slandered and rejected God’s other children. It is truly a grave sin of pride that has crusted Adventists over and made them cynical, paranoid and suspicious of other Christians. 

What is so typical of this mindset is its inability to see themselves the way others see them. When confronted with their problems of pride, elitism and fear (as well as disobedience to God’s command of unity), all they can do is attack the messenger.

Those who expose their historical and biblical inaccuracies, those who remind them that it is they who teach other churches are the whore of Babylon and will come and persecute them...it is they who are staying away and insisting upon disunity.... this reminder creates an even more entrenched victimhood

status in their minds. When a mirror is turned upon them, they cry foul and assume it is a great devil that would show them that they are not the sole remnant.

Yet, I do not give up on them. Adventists are victims, not of other Christians, but of themselves. While they are looking for a Sunday law, they will be ignoring and abandoning the true Christian persecution out there. And their children will continue to suffer and hurt without help.

Adventists we need you in the Christian fold. You need to be in the Christian fold. Do not be afraid. Unity is commanded by Christ, what are you waiting for?

WHY IS SUNDAY A HOLY DAY?

The Jewish rituals were exciting, yet mysterious and serious...deathly serious. God set them in motion at that time so that the world would look at the Jews, see their holiness and know that God lived among them. Everything from what type of cloth and what color the priests wore, to the washing, to the spoken liturgy, to the Sabbaths both weekly and annual were instigated that God could remain with them--a taste of the Immanuel, “God with us” that would be fully come in the future Messiah. The rituals themselves were holy, Messianic prophecies. The Jews were a living prophecy and their rituals, an anticipatory drama daily performed in the Temple in Jerusalem. The Old Covenant was the road map to the New. It was a sign to point to who Christ would be.

Jesus fulfilled the purpose of all the Jewish Temple rituals and regulations. He became our passover Lamb, our sacrifice, our high priest. Because of Christ the old law was absorbed into the new. The new fulfilled the old. All the old laws and rituals were shadows of the more perfect that were to come in the New Covenant with a new priesthood and a new law. Let’s look at how the inspired writer of Hebrews put it: 

Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek..? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.....For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. And inasmuch as it was not without an oath...so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.[Jewish laws] serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things...now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises...For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I willeffect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt...When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. 

For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance...For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things...He takes away the first in order to establish the second. (Excerpts of Hebrews 7-10)

The sacrifices and laws and Sabbaths of the Old Covenant point to Christ and His New Covenant. But let us focus on the Sabbath and its fulfillment in Christ and why Sunday is part of this fulfillment.

Many Christians misunderstand how the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday complement each other. The Jewish Sabbath is completed in and made perfect in Sunday, not because Christians have a new Sabbath, but because Christ became our eternal rest, our eternal “Sabbath.” Sunday is holy, not because it is a Sabbath, but because it is part of the new covenant plan of Salvation! Yes Sunday! 

From the very beginning, Sunday was part of the gospel mystery because God chose the first day of Creation week to announce, “let there be light” and God chose the first day of a new world of grace to announce the light of the gospel--Christ Himself who is the truth and the light.

This atoning for our sins was fulfilled when Christ ascended to heaven to offer His blood to the Father on Sunday.  The Resurrection Sunday wasn’t an accident, Christ didn’t overlook it and then regret rising on Sunday because so many of His followers made that a false day of worship. No, Sunday was planned from the beginning. It fit into the Messianic prophecy. 

But how did the Old Testament Jewish sacrifices and the Sabbaths point to Sunday as part of the Passion and Crucifixion week of Christ? We need to look closely at the rite of the sacrifice itself. We will examine how three actions (common to all Jewish bloody sacrifices) correlated to the Cross: 

• The bringing forward of the victim:
  
  (Ex. 29: 42; Lev. 1: 5; 3:1; 4: 6) There was a procession of the animal and the sacrificer to the altar. Then a confession of sins (Lev. 16: 21; 5: 5; Nu. 5: 5) which, according to Rabbinic tradition, was verbal (Otho, "Lex rabbin," 552). 1
  
  The Cross: Friday. The Via Dolorosa is where Christ carried the cross through the streets to the hill of Golgotha. There they placed above his head a description of his crimes. (John 19:   Mark 15: 26)

So by this, Christ was fulfilling the procession of being the sacrifice and the public confession of the "sin" of being the Messiah and Savior.

• The slaying: to be performed by the sacrificer himself (Lev. 1: 3.) That the act of slaying or the destruction of the victim was not the chief element, is evident from the precept that the sacrificers themselves, who were not priests, had to care for the slaying.2
  
  The Cross: Friday and Saturday. Jesus freely lay down His life for us. He was the sacrificer and the priest both. (John 10: 15, 17.)

But the sacrifice was not yet complete. 

• The sprinkling of the blood and acceptance by God: The real sacrificial function began with the sprinkling of blood by the priest, which, according to the Law, pertained to him alone (Lev. 1: 5; 3:2; 4:5; 2 Chr. 29: 23). If a layman undertook the blood-sprinkling, the sacrifice was invalid (cf. Mischna Sebachim, II, 1). The oblation of the blood on the altar by the priest thus formed the real essence of the bloody sacrifice.3

Jewish tradition also expressly designated the priestly sprinkling of the blood on the altar as "the root and principle of the sacrifice". The explanation is given in Lev. 17:10.: "...the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you, that you may make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, and the blood may be for an expiation of the soul." Here the blood of the victim is declared in the clearest terms to be the means of propitiation, and the propitiation itself is associated with the application of the blood on the altar.4 

The Cross: Sunday. Christ presented His sacrifice to the Father at His resurrection on Sunday finishing the Atonement. 

Is it possible that Jesus is giving us a clue as to when He applied His blood when He spoke to Mary?

Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher). Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " John 20:16-17

We can be certain that Christ applied the blood of His sacrifice on Sunday because He told Mary He had not yet ascended to the Father to whom the blood must be offered. Yet later that day, in the evening, He went to His disciples, evidently having returned. From then on people touched Him.

We also have another possible clue as to the day the blood was presented to the Father. In Revelation 1: 10 we read that on the “Lord’s Day” St. John went into vision and saw:

...a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders... And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.... In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!" Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever! 

Christ chose to atone for the sins of all men on Sunday by presenting the Father with His precious blood. 

• Christ chose Thursday to instigate the Lord’s Supper and the New Covenant. 
• Christ chose Friday to sacrifice Himself just as the Passover Lamb was being slaughtered in the nearby Temple of Jerusalem. And the Old Covenant was finished. Done. Completed. Sin and death were conquered. 
• then Christ chose to rest on Sabbath. God’s Sabbath was given to the Jews to point to the final Sabbath of Christ! 

It was the final Sabbath when, in His rest, Christ descended to the dark place of rest for all generations up until that point and released His people from sleep. The Sabbath now was Christ. He is the true rest.

• Then Christ chose Sunday.

A new day dawned. A new light--the sun of

righteousness! (Malachi 4:2; Wisdom 5: 6) A new heaven and a new earth. Prophesied in the Old Testament, not as a replacement for the seventh day of the week, but as the new first/eighth day symbol. (See: Ex. 12: 16; 22:30; 40:2, 17, Lev. 9:1; 12:3; 14;10,23; 15:14, 29; 22:27; 23: 7, 35, 36, 39-40, Num.6:10; 28: 18; 29:35, I Kings 12:32, 2 Chr. 2: 9; 29:17, Neh. 8:18, Ezek. 43:27; 45:18, Luke 1:59; 2:21, Phil. 3:5)

The sacredness and holiness of Sabbath was never transferred to Sunday. Saturday Sabbath didn’t become Sunday Sabbath anymore than a lamb became Christ. Sabbath was a rest from labor in preparation for the eternal rest in the Messiah. Sabbath was our prophetic clue to what the New Covenant would be like.

Sunday was also planned from the beginning.

It was on Sunday that Christ chose to rise from the dead (Matt. 28:1), ascend to His father, consecrate His disciples. On that Sunday, He revealed Himself at the breaking of the bread (Luke 24: 31), breathed on His Apostles and they received the Holy Spirit (John 20: 19-21). A week later on Sunday, Christ came to doubting Thomas and showed him the wounds in His side. On pentecost Sunday the Holy Spirit was given at the birth of the church. 

Fundamentalists will claim, "Since Paul said there are no more holy days, Sunday cannot be holy.” But Gal. 4: 10, Rom. 14:5 and Col. 2: 16 do not prevent observing Sunday as a holy day, it just says we are not to return to Judaism and let others judge us on our holy days. We are at liberty to observe or not observe. 

Adventists will claim, "Since there is no specific prooftext that records God making Sunday holy, I won't ever believe it. Au contraire. Even if not explicitly recorded, it is most definitely implied. 

[Some of what Christians believe do not have an explicit prooftext in the Bible: The Trinity, the full divinity of Christ. Not all was explicitly revealed in the Old Testament about the Messiah. Jesus never calls the New Testament "holy." Only the Old Testament is called sacred and holy and yet the vast majority of Christians agree that the New Testament is holy.]

Yet, please Adventists do not misunderstand me. Sunday is not a New Covenant Sabbath as the 7th-day is the Old Covenant Sabbath. But worshipping on Sunday as a holy day can deduced several ways:

We can deduce that Sunday is holy because Christians are holy. (I Cor. 3:17, I Cor. 7: 14; Eph. 1:4, Col. 1: 26; 3:12, I Thess. 4:8, Heb. 3: 1, I Peter 2:5, Rev. 20:6). We are the church and the holy temple (Eph. 2: 21; 5: 27) and when we worship, where we worship it is holy. Because everything we do should be holy, even our kisses!(I Cor. 16: 20; 2 Cor. 13: 12). In a sense, since the Apostles met daily (Acts 2:46), each day in the New Covenant is holy--including Sunday. But Sunday was special (Acts 20:7, I Cor. 16:2). 

But there is a much greater reason to celebrate Sunday as a holy day:

The church has placed emphasis on Sunday because Christ placed an emphasis on Sunday. Sunday was chosen by God Himself to birth a New Covenant. It is the birthday of our righteousness by faith. It is a very holy day, for on it Christ broke the bonds of death and sin. Sunday was the day the blood was offered to the Father--the end of the Atonement ritual. Sunday is the first day of our adoption as children of God. 

Sunday is all over the Old Testament hiding mysteriously awaiting to be revealed at the resurrection. 
__________________
(All footnotes from Catholic Encyclopedia, “Sacrifice.”)

THE SACRED RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH by Teresa Beem

Freedom of Speech; we all want to use it all the time. We all want to express ourselves and be heard. But what does freedom of speech really mean? Is it just a right to publicly express oneself? Or is there something  more important than getting to publicly hear one's own voice? Why is this freedom to speak so sacred to us?

Let’s examine the following type of conversation:

A: “Sarah Palin is an idiot and a hater and a bigot.”  

B: “That is a horrible slanderous thing to say. You should not say such things.” 

A: “I have the right to freedom of speech and can say anything I wish to.” 

Insert any conversation you wish where the end is one person replying, “It’s America and I have the right to say what I want.”

Technically person A is correct in that in America, we have the right of freedom of speech. But notice the defensiveness. Person A feels if someone is arguing with them or tells them they shouldn’t say the things they are saying, then their free speech is being impeded. 

Person A has a wrong premise of freedom of speech. He or she is assuming that the freedom to publicly express oneself is given so that the world can know their opinion--as if their opinion has some democratic or equal rights. And if someone then argues with their opinion, it is somehow suppressing their opinion's sacred rights. 

Wrong. 

Person B has the exact same right of speech to disagree. There is nothing in Person’s B’s statement that was attempting to take away Person A’s right to free speech. They were merely saying that person A shouldn't express a flippant or wrong opinion that could distort or falsify the facts. Person B was using his rights also to attempt to get to the truth of something.

Americans have a right to publicly disagree and tell others their opinion is stupid. Opinions aren’t sacred. Personal views have no sacred rights. 

Let me explain by going back. America’s founding fathers understood that governments could suppress truth. They had the power to control and disseminate wrong information to control the populace. This totalitarian power over information brought terrible injustice. Imagine a courtroom not allowing a witness to speak or the accused not allowed to defend themselves. For justice to occur everyone with pertinent information needed to be able to share it. Hence, the sacred right of free speech. 

The point of free speech being sacred is that the truth can be known--so that the truth couldn’t be deliberately suppressed by powerful forces. Free speech isn’t so that everyone has an equal opportunity to be creative and express themselves. They can be heard, but they can be argued with in order for the truth to get out!

Freedom of speech is sacred because truth is sacred. 

Some in the United States tend to become defensive because they assume their opinion, or expressing their opinions, is sacred. That is what is behind the conversation above. That defensive reply, “I have the right to speak” shows an ignorance of what their right means. It shows a lack of understanding of the point of free speech. We protect your words so that we can get to the truth, not because we think your words have some innate value or are sacrosanct. They are valuable if they further us along in getting to truth. 

If you wish to exercise your freedom of speech, please do so, but keep in mind that your self-expression has no rights and is valueless and needs to be disagreed with if it doesn’t shed more light on something or lead to truth. In America truth is sacred, not opinions.