Are SDAs Orthodox?

[Gregory Matthews]

The following article is an interesting discussion  as to whether or not SDAs are orthodox and if so, to what extent.

https://atoday.org/are-adventists-the-ultra-orthodox-hasidim-of-mainstream-christianity/

The following is just one challenging statement that the author makes:

Adventist leaders have repeatedly said the pre-Advent investigative judgment (PAIJ) doctrine is our “unique” contribution to Christianity. However, this might just be a positive way of saying something quite negative – it is the one doctrine that is unorthodox, being a mere modern invention.

I would, however, argue the broad idea of the PAIJ is historic and therefore orthodox, because something akin to a pre-parousia judgment of an investigative nature has been believed since the earliest days of Christianity. The Nicene Creed explicitly mentions judgment. The idea is still found within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy today in the concepts of “particular judgment” and “general judgment.” Nonetheless, the specific prophetic 1844 date is admittedly much harder to address. See Angel Rodriguez, “The Judgement and the Second Coming,” Biblical Research Institute (Washington: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 11/01).

 

[JoeMo]

or·tho·dox

ˈôrTHəˌdäks/

adjective

 

 

(of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

 

By this definition, there are several aspects of Adventism which are not generally accepted as true, established, and approved.  For example:

- Sabbath (Saturday) worship

- state of the dead

- papacy is antichrist

- infallible prophecies of EGW

- 1844

 

When comparing these beliefs to those of general mainstream Christianity, these SDA doctrines are unorthodox; or non-conventional at the very least.

[Kevin H]

6 hours ago, JoeMo said:

or·tho·dox

ˈôrTHəˌdäks/

adjective

 

 

(of a person or their views, especially religious or political ones, or other beliefs or practices) conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved.

 

By this definition, there are several aspects of Adventism which are not generally accepted as true, established, and approved.  For example:

- Sabbath (Saturday) worship

- state of the dead

- papacy is antichrist

- infallible prophecies of EGW

- 1844

 

When comparing these beliefs to those of general mainstream Christianity, these SDA doctrines are unorthodox; or non-conventional at the very least.

Not as cut and dry:

Sabbath: There is a growing segment among scholars which does not believe that the New Testament requires Gentiles to keep the Sabbath, but still expects those of Jewish heritage to keep the Sabbath and that it invites Gentiles in keeping the Sabbath. (see http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=37) An Assemblies of God Church here in Binghamton has Saturday services as well as Sunday services for members who are Sabbath keepers (or who wants to attend services on Saturday).

State of the dead: Most Bible scholars see the Bible as teaching that the dead are sleeping/in repose in sheol.

Papacy is antichrist, this has mixed reactions

Infallible prophecies of EGW: Come now, Even Mrs. White did not believe that she had infallible prophecies. That is only when we try to squeeze Mrs. White and the Bible into the myth of what a prophet should be that was defined by Fundamentalism.  That is something that we should all question.

1844, As mentioned in the post there is a belief in a pre-advent Judgment in many churches. If we look at the exegesis and show some flexibility we can give evidence that can make 1844 easier to accept.

[Ulunruh]

What is "orthodox" really?

Is it really complying with "tradition"?
And if so -- is tradition "truth"?

The thought crossed my mind -- is the Greek Orthodox Church, orthodox?   It claims to be -- even has the word in it's name.

The "eastern" Christian church clung to apostolic teachings a lot longer than the western church, but gradually they adopted many of the western church's ways.

Case in point was the icon controversy.  The controversy over images.

The western church was establishing quite a precedent  for having images in their churches and paying them "respect" in rather worshipful manner.

The eastern church at first resisted this idolatry.  There was even  widespread destruction of images and persecution of supporters of the veneration of images.   In the west the support of the use of images throughout the controversy remained strong, and the whole controversy aided in dividing  the Eastern and Western church.  

Yet in spite of the fierce opposition they put forth against it, they eventually accepted icons -- icon veneration is very much part of the Greek Orthodox Church today., as it is part of the Roman Church.

 

So at what point was it "orthodox"?

.

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, chilco said:

What is "orthodox" really?

Is it really complying with "tradition"?
And if so -- is tradition "truth"?