A deep dive into the origins and distinctive doctrines of the Seventh Day Adventists in search of a right understanding of what we should make of the modern SDA movement.

Within just the last few weeks, the social media algorithms have been serving me up a hearty helping of Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) content for my viewing pleasure.  As I watched these reels – probably three dozen in total – I’ve noticed some similarities.  A significant majority of them – better than 85% – are focused specifically on the Sabbath.  Many are from the official SDA account; very well produced, paired with beautiful visuals and peaceful music.  All in all, they are a good reminder to seek our rest in the Lord.  But here’s the thing: absent from most of the reels is a mention of Jesus, and even less so, the Gospel.  Were this a person’s only exposure to the SDA, it would be reasonable for them to assume that the Sabbath, as presented, seems to be almost an end unto itself – as though it’s the means by which we achieve peace with God.  And while that is not what SDA doctrine teaches, I do believe it begs the question of why so much emphasis is centered on Sabbath observance.      

While largely orthodox in their beliefs, Seventh Day Adventists readily admit that they hold a variety of views that fall outside traditional evangelical Christianity. In fact, it is these distinctives which they point to as marks of their Biblical faithfulness as God’s Remnant in the last days.  What can we learn from their beliefs and how can grasping the historical conditions from which Adventism grew, help us to guard against error in our modern church context? That’s what we’ll be exploring in this rather lengthy article.  

As a note, I use the term “orthodox” to describe commonly held traditional Christian doctrines, and as a means of differentiating from heterodoxy and heresy. 

A Farmer, A Girl, and the End of Days

It was an unseasonably cold summer’s day in June of 1842, when a young girl of just fifteen years of age sat enraptured, in the pews of Casco Street Church in Portland, ME. Over the last twelve months, four separate significant volcanic eruptions around the world had led to the coldest June on record in Maine – threatening crops and livelihoods alike – adding to the sense of urgency and dread in the air.  Yet in Portland, things were looking up.  This bustling seaside city of some 15,000 people was expanding by the minute, fueled by the lucrative West Indies trade and a brand new, vital rail line to Montreal.  In fact, the city was growing so quickly during the mid-19th century that it became known as “Stumptown”, so named for the thousands of acres of dense maritime forest cleared to make way for the ever-expanding city. 

It was into this context that one William Miller, a prosperous New York farmer-turned Baptist lay pastor, traveled again to Portland, crossing paths with the young Ellen Gould Harmon for a second time. The cold weather did nothing to dim her enthusiasm for Miller’s Bible-rich message of the imminent return of Christ. Yet, within just two years, Miller’s movement would be in shambles – his prediction failing to come true. 

In the wake of what came to be known as the Great Disappointment, this young woman, riding a wave of interest in her own prophetic visions of the imminent end of days, would find herself thrust into the center of the fledgling Adventist movement.  By the late 1840’s, with her husband, James White, by her side, Ellen White would minister to this growing movement, teaching, preaching, writing and delivering her visions – eventually numbering well over 100. This movement, founded by James and Ellen White and Uriah Bates, among others, would, in 1863, officially become Seventh Day Adventistism (SDA). Other noteworthy leaders in the fledgling organization included John Nevins Andrews and Uriah Smith, who both had a significant role in shaping the early doctrine of the SDA, and who both came out of the heretical Christian Connexion sect.

Though Ellen White never held an official office, she wielded incredible influence in the maturing movement, often by way of prophetic instructions. The SDA recognized her prophetic works as divinely given, and viewed her as the movement’s prophet par excellence. Over the next five decades, she would remain an active member and prolific prophet, writer, preacher and teacher within the SDA, though in her final years, White would curtail much of her traveling to focus primarily on her writing. Ellen White died in 1915, at the age of 88 – 34 years after her husband’s passing.     

The SDA Today

Today, Ellen White is generally held in great esteem among the SDA, though to varying degrees. Her visions are officially seen as evidence of God’s clear hand on her ministry and teachings, and more broadly on the SDA movement as a whole.  As of 2021, the SDA reported membership of over 21 million people, with over 95,000 congregations worldwide, including missions to 535 language groups in 212 countries. The AdventHealth System – the largest protestant medical organization in the world, consists of over 1,000 hospitals, clinics and medical facilities worldwide – a central component of their “ministry of healing.”  

In general, the church is broadly evangelistic, low church, somewhat charismatic and skews heavily Arminian in their understanding of the human will and the sovereignty of God. The group’s doctrine has evolved over time, and in general has become closer to orthodoxy as a whole. The SDA holds to 28 Fundamental Beliefs, most of which parallel if not entirely agree with orthodox theology. Doctrine within the SDA does have some variation within a relatively narrow continuum, with some adherents skewing more toward orthodoxy (see the short-lived ESDA of the 1950’s) while traditionalists tend to reject some of the modern, more orthodox doctrinal changes (such as the acceptance of the Trinity) in favor of the doctrinal convictions of SDA founders.  Nevertheless, several of the group’s key doctrines, to which all SDA subscribe, continue to raise questions in the broader evangelical movement about whether the SDA truly fits into orthodox Christianity. 

Orthodox, Heterodox, Heresy

In general, the reason why orthodox Christians debate whether the SDA faith should be considered truly Christian is because, at least as it stands today, the SDA faith holds to several beliefs that are not orthodox, but are not clearly heretical either.  Many critics agree that the SDA falls within the grey area of heterodoxy, though others believe some errors they espouse rise to the level of Heresy.  For the sake of clarity and understanding, it may be helpful here to define precisely what we mean by the terms Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy and Heresy:

Orthodoxy – doctrinal beliefs that closely align with historical, generally universally-accepted important doctrines of the church.  

Heterodoxy – doctrinal beliefs about secondary or tertiary matters that differ from historical, generally universally-accepted doctrines of the church.  While viewed as error, these errors do not directly compromise the core salvific doctrines of the faith.  

Heresy – doctrinal beliefs about primary, salvific matters that differ from historical, universally-accepted doctrines of the church.  This is not just error, but is damnable error. The embrace of such beliefs are seen as evidence one’s faith is counterfeit and false and those who teach such error are considered false teachers.

On a recent Ask Pastor John, John Piper offered a helpful means of weighing whether an errant teaching rises to the level of heresy.  As he describes it, error rises to the level of heresy to the degree to which it does one or more of these four things: 1) Alters the understanding of Jesus in a way that undermines His ability to save.  2) Undermines the finished work of the cross.  3) Distorts the role of faith alone to save.  4) Disregards the severity of sin in general, or specific sins in particular.  Or, to put it more succinctly, “to the degree that a doctrine or a practice tends to undermine the gospel of salvation, it is a very serious error.” As we’ll explore in the next section, the question is, by this rubric, how does the SDA’s doctrines stack up?

Questionable Doctrine

Like most religious movements that have existed for any length of time, SDA doctrine has grown and been refined and even redefined over time.  There is also some diversity among SDA divines on various doctrines on both significant and secondary matters. There is also a broader divide – largely stemming from events in the 1950’s that produced two broad, loosely-defined groups within the movement; an evangelical arm that sought to more closely align with the faith and doctrine of the orthodox evangelical movement, and traditionalists that sought to uphold more of the early SDA distinctives which many orthodox Christians would consider heresy.   And of course, it is important to note that just because the doctrines outlined below are, to the best of my knowledge, true of the SDA, that does not mean every member of the SDA holds such beliefs.  

With all the above caveats in mind, here’s a list of 16 distinctive SDA doctrines and beliefs that, to varying degrees, fall outside of traditional, historic Christianity:

1. Ellen White’s Authoritative Revelations – Ellen White’s prolific writings (over 5,000 articles and 40 books) and prophetic visions (between 100 and 200 depending on how they are categorized) are seen as Spirit-inspired, crucial authoritative secondary works.  Though not officially seen as equal to the Bible, her writings and visions are held in high esteem, and the way in which they are revered can give the impression that practically, they are placed on equal, if not superior, footing to the Holy Scriptures.  This is problematic for a variety of reasons, not least of which are the false prophecies Ellen White made, including an 1856 claim, recorded at a conference that, “I was shown the company present at the conference. Said the angel, ‘Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.’”  Yet, all alive in 1856 have long since died, making this prophecy one among many that have proven false. 
2. Sabbatarianism –  The organization itself is known for their devotion to the practice of a Saturday Sabbath (Sabbatarianism), and though often subtle, many believe the observance of the Saturday Sabbath is a test of genuine Christianity and the denial of it, an evidence of apostasy.  A recent reel posted by the official SDA Facebook page, largely makes this claim, linking their practice of Sabbatarianism with the view we present next, the claim that the SDA is God’s exclusive remnant.
3. An Exclusive Remnant – Tying into their Sabbatarian beliefs, the SDA officially holds that it is the remnant church prophesied in Scripture, pointing to Revelation 12:17 as evidence that they, through their obedience to God’s commands (and especially the Sabbath), are the faithful remnant. Early SDA teaching held that only faithful SDA members will be saved, but beginning in the mid 20th century (at least among Evangelical SDA), they now officially teach that there can be those who are faithful and obedient followers of Christ in other denominations.  However, they still hold that other churches and denominations are, as a whole, apostate. They consider Christians who keep God’s commandments in other denominations to be in Babylon, one day to be united to the remnant church, the SDA.   
4. Annihilationism – The SDA officially denies eternal punishment for those who reject Christ, claiming that a traditional view of an eternal Hell is incompatible with a God of love. 
5. The Archangel Michael as the pre-incarnate Jesus – Like the Jehovah Witnesses, the SDA holds that Jesus and Michael are different names for the Son of God.  They hold that Michael was the pre-incarnate manifestation of Jesus.  However it is important to note that unlike the Jehovah Witnesses, the SDA does not now believe that Jesus/Michael was created. Jude 9, Matthew 4:10, Hebrews 1:5 and Daniel 10:13 refute the SDA doctrine on Michael.
6. Sanctuary Doctrine & Investigative Judgment – In the wake of the Great Disappointment (in which Christ’s predicted second coming did not come to pass), members of the SDA began teaching what they called the Sanctuary Doctrine. This belief claims that in 1844, paralleling the earthly role of a high priest, what actually happened was that Christ entered the second chamber of His sanctuary in Heaven, where Jesus is now at work investigating the lives of the living and the dead, to see who, by abiding in Christ and following His commandments, is worthy of eternal life.
7. Two Phase Atonement – Hand in hand with the Sanctuary Doctrine, SDA hold to a view of atonement that does not align with traditional church doctrine. In SDA doctrine, they believe in a two-phased atonement.  In their theology, the cross is merely the place where Christ’s sacrifice took place, but did not in and of itself atone for sin.  Christ’s atoning work, they believe, is still ongoing in the heavenly sanctuary, where Christ is actively blotting out the sin of His people. They hold that when this work is completed, Christ’s second coming will take place.    
8. Partial Denial of the Sin Nature –  There is significant internal debate among the SDA concerning the existence and substance of a sin nature.  One group argues that we inherit a disposition toward sin, while the other denies any inherited sin nature whatsoever. However, more universally, both groups deny inherited legal guilt from Adam. 
9. Perfectionism – Another matter of internal debate revolves around the doctrine of perfectionism.  In particular, Ellen White, and both early and traditional SDA proponents hold that, in order to be with Christ in glory, we must achieve a state of perfect holiness in this life (though this does not seem, at least at the surface, to align with the SDA understanding of the ongoing atoning work of Christ). However this doctrine has been softened by some in recent decades.  
10. Denial of Eternal Security and other Elements of Works-Based Righteousness – While the SDA officially affirms a generally orthodox view of salvation by grace through faith, critics point to doctrine like investigative judgment and the group’s focus on law-keeping, along with their belief that salvation can be lost, to suggest that the group’s practical theology tends toward works-based righteousness. Anecdotally, my own exposure to SDA social media content seems to support such a concern – with the majority of the content I have seen being focused on our obedience, and not clearly on the Gospel.
11. Elements of Egalitarianism – While the SDA does not in general ordain women as ministers, parts of the SDA, especially in the US, do permit women to fill roles like pastors and elders, despite the Bible’s clear teaching to the contrary.  It is important to note there is significant internal debate on this topic. 
12. The Clear Word Bible: An Erroneous Paraphrase – Authored by Jack J. Blanco and first published by the SDA in 1994 and still in print by the SDA today, this loose paraphrase, while not officially endorsed as an approved Bible translation for preaching and formal study (Most SDA prefer the KJV or NKJV), is commended by the SDA for devotional use.  Like the Jehovah Witnesses’ New World Translation, the CWB often interprets passages that seem to contradict SDA doctrine by significantly altering the passage – even to the point of reversing the meaning. Here are examples of how the CRM reverses the meaning of many passages that teach the eternality of Hell.   
13. Dietary Restrictions – though certainly a tertiary question of orthodoxy and probably within the realm of matters of conscience, “healthful living” has been a tenant of SDA faith since 1863.  Today, the group encourages, though does not require, a vegetarian diet, but does require adherents to obey major Old Testament dietary laws, such as abstaining from pork products.  
14. The Seed of Open Theism – Though official SDA doctrine is generally orthodox in its understanding of God’s omnisciences, embracing an Arminian understanding of God’s foreknowledge and the human will, it is important to note that the heresy of Open Theism was devised by the prominent SDA theologian and seminary professor, Richard Ricein.  His 1980 work, The Openness of God, promoted this heresy as a means of reconciling his understanding of man’s free will and God’s foreknowledge by denying God’s omniscience.  While this doctrine has been condemned as heretical by orthodox denominations, the SDA has not formally labeled it a heresy.  it is important to note that Ricein remained a prominent SDA professor, and was awarded the title of professor emeritus upon his retirement in July of 2020 while continuing to embrace Open Theism.  It does appear that the theological environment of the SDA made for fertile ground for such a heresy to sprout.  Take for example, an SDA defense of their current Trinitarian beliefs, in which they quote Ellen White: “The Godhead was stirred with pity for the race, and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit gave themselves to the working out of the plan of redemption.”  Does not a plain reading of this quote support an Open Theistic understanding of God, whereby He reacts to an event that was not foreknown?  So, while the SDA does not officially embrace Open Theism, it falls short of clearly condemning it as heresy or taking actions to remove those who teach it.   
15. Denial of the Trinity (Past/traditional SDA) – While today the SDA officially holds to a view of the Trinity that closely parallels orthodox beliefs, it is important to note that this hasn’t always been the case, and in fact there is a growing anti-trinitarian movement among some fundamentalist SDA churches. The majority of the early leaders of the SDA movement denied the Trinity, chiefly denying the eternal deity of Jesus and the personhood of the Holy Spirit.  Many also denied the deity of Christ outright.  In the 20th century, however, these views slowly began to shift, with much of the SDA adopting Trinitarian beliefs by the late 1950’s, and the SDA officially adopting the doctrine of the Trinity in their 1980 General Conference.   
16. Semi-Arian Christology (Past/traditional) – Though generally not true of most modern SDA, it warrants noting that the early SDA founders and theologians, including Ellen White, held various heretical view of Christ, though this began to change, starting with the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference.  Some of their official writings, such as that of J.N. Andrews, claimed explicitly that the Council of Nicea ”destroys the personality of God and his Son Jesus Christ our Lord”. Andrews also claimed that Christ, at “some point at the eternity of the past, have beginning of days”. In general, early SDA doctrine did not see Christ as eternally co-equal with the Father and the Spirit, but as one who was given that privilege by the Father.  In other words, there was a time in eternity past when Jesus was not equal to God the Father. As seen in the writings of White, this seems to be more than just a difference in role, but a difference in nature and substance, a view which the early church condemned as heretical at the Council of Nicea (325).   Likewise,  White taught that Jesus, because He took human form, was not then, and is not now omnipresent, and therefore needed to send the Spirit to make Jesus accessible to all. This heresy denies the hypostatic union of Christ (fully God and fully man) that was codified at the Council of Chalcedon (451). 

At least on the surface, many of these doctrines were concerning enough that, up until the 1950’s, traditional evangelical Christians, denominations and institutions all-but-universally considered the SDA to be a cult.  However, as I have eluded to before, a series of encounters between SDA and Evangelical scholars in the 1950s led to a softening – both of Evangelical resistance to the SDA, and to some of the sharper angles of SDA doctrine itself.  This was most evident in the creation of the short-lived Evangelical Second Day Advetist sect.  This shift toward orthodoxy was not without controversy, and led to somewhat of a split between the more moderate evangelical Adventism and the hardline traditional Adventism.     

All of this considered, the question begs to be asked, with all the nuance and internal differences, peculiar history and concerning beliefs, what should we make of the SDA – and how can understanding the historical backdrop to the formation and growth of the SDA guard us against error in the modern church?  That’s what we’ll tackle next. 

The Burned-over District: A Primer

To understand how the SDA, Adventism in general, and even the Millerite movement that preceded it came about, we must first draw our attention to the common nexus that ties together Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Spiritism and the Adventist movements.  We must look to the Second Great Awakening, and in particular, the lawyer-turned evangelist, Charles Finney’s oversized impact on a cluster of counties in western New York State.  

As the nineteenth century dawned, religion in the newly-minted United States of America was anything but thriving.  The fervency and piety that flowed from the Great Awakening, almost a century earlier, had been replaced with a general spiritual malaise. It is estimated that between 70% and 90% of American adults did not regularly attend church in this era – a number that would not be eclipsed until the 2000’s. But all that was about to change.     

In June of 1800, two traveling Methodist ministers were wrapping up a fourth evening of revival services at a Presbyterian church in central Kentucky with an emotional plea to trust in Christ.  The result was a tremendously enthusiastic response, where many fainted and it was claimed the Holy Spirit had descended mightily on the meeting.  Over the next several decades, the drum beat of revivalism would double, and then double again, to the point that one periodical wrote in 1827 that, “Revivals, we rejoice to say, are becoming too numerous in our country to admit of being generally mentioned in our Record.” 

Unlike the First Great Awakening’s emphasis on true religious affections, rooted in solid, often Calvinistic theology, this second iteration was much more theologically fluid and flimsy by comparison – mimicking the democratic fervor of the fledgling nation.  The awakening’s primary tool was a novel, often emotionally-manipulative conversionism.  And while revivalists’ enthusiastic pleas often focused on making a decision to follow Jesus, the applicational emphasis often centered on a call to social reform, personal responsibility, and even perfectionism. 

Enter Charles Finney. Likely the most recognizable of the Second Great Awakening revivalists, Finney began life as a Presbyterian, but as a lawyer-turned itinerant preacher, he embraced his own semi-Palagain flavor of Methodism, complete with a strong belief in perfectionism.  Finney was an innovator, and when he brought his skills to bear from 1825-1835 in New York’s Jefferson County, it was incredibly effective.  One Rochester, NY convert quipped, “The whole community was stirred. Religion was the topic of conversation in the house, in the shop, in the office and on the street. The only theater in the city was converted into a livery stable; the only circus into a soap and candle factory. Grog shops were closed; the Sabbath was honored; the sanctuaries were thronged with happy worshippers; a new impulse was given to every philanthropic enterprise; the fountains of benevolence were opened, and men lived to good.”     

They called this region the Burned-over District – an area of New York so evangelized that the fire of revival had burned over every resident in the region.  Finney’s impact was tremendous – especially in the social welfare of the communities his ministry impacted.  But, Finney’s doctrinally light revivalism, the democratization of doctrine, and the embrace of spiritual novelty had a dark underbelly – an unintended consequence that added fuel to the fire of theological error and destruction – producing not not one, but at least three prominent cults in the country, and giving birth to the pagan American Spiritism movement to boot.  It is from this region that, influenced by Finney, William Miller would emerge preaching the imminent return of Jesus Christ.  

The Birth of Adventism – Young, Restless and Radical

It was from this root that Adventism grew, watered by the works of Finney and pruned by the influential lay pastor, William Miller.  In the wake of the Great Disappointment of 1844, a conference of Millerites was called in Albany the following year.  Brought together by the conviction of the imminent return of Christ, 61 delegates convened to wrestle over the future of their fledgling movement, reenvisioned as Adventism.  However, due to significant doctrinal differences among the delegates, four main branches of Adventism would soon spring from the trunk, each with their own theological distinctives.  These groups, themselves, splintered off, producing ten distinct religious groups by 1875, including what would soon become the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Another of the ten, the Seventh Day Adventist movement, was officially organized in 1863 in the midst of the tumultuous and terrifying years of the Civil War.    

Not all Adventists believed in Sabbath-day worship. In fact, only two of the ten movements had this doctrine as a tenant.  However, what was nearly universal, beginning with Finney and Miller, and true of the vast majority of Adventists founders, is that they had no formal theological education.  Many were also very young.  SDA co-founders J.N. Andrews and Ellen White were both in their early teens when they chose to follow William Miller. White was just 17 when she started her teaching ministry. Andrews, who is responsible for the formation of much of the SDA’s early theology, began his itinerant preaching ministry at the age of 21.                   

The combination of youth and theological naivety which marked the formative years of the SDA contributed to significant departures from orthodox Christian teachings – with many of the errant beliefs borrowed from several SDA founders’ involvement with the Christian Connexion – a movement which denied the Trinity and the eternal deity of Christ. There is no denying that these are some complex doctrines – ones for which a robust, systematic understanding of Scripture is required to arrive at a faithful interpretation that takes into account all the Bible’s evidence, including evidence that on the surface can seem contradictory. Especially in an age before searchable content and with limited access to resources, and compounded by a presumption that historic Christian creeds are not to be trusted (a belief held by SDA founders and the Christian Connexion), error becomes almost inevitable.

This shouldn’t surprise us.  Imagine you’re a teenager with little mechanical understanding and you’re hired by a mechanic’s shop and handed a 1,200 page repair manual.  Even with the help of illustrations, you’re practically learning a new language. What is a flange, an idler jet, a coil, an ECU, a knurled piston?  Because the vehicle and the manual are so complex, it’s easy to make mistakes and wrong assumptions both out of lack of understanding and lack of experience. So, no matter how sincere or well-meaning you are, if in your limited knowledge you fail to understand any portion of how a carburetor and throttle body work together to provide the right mixture of fuel and air to the engine, then you’re likely going to make some pretty serious mistakes. This is especially true if you dismiss the master mechanics who have the expertise and understanding to help younservice this complex system correctly

How much more so is error a danger when handling the three-quarter-of-a-million words of the Bible, with all its intricacies; its varying genres and themes, styles and subject-matter; original languages and historical context, and a panoply of technical terms like propitiation, justification, even salvation (saved from what? saved for what? Saved by what?…). It’s no small thing to synthesize the teachings of the Bible into one coherent, faithful and accurate systematic understanding of the Word. In many ways, you could say it’s taken the church 2,000 years to do this, and it’s still a work in progress. Even when it comes to the key doctrines of the faith, it took the church the better part of 500 years of fervent study to arrive at doctrine that was faithful to the full counsel of the Word of God. And therefore, when you choose not to lean on the wealth of wisdom from those who have gone before, it’s so easy to go astray – maybe even inevitable – especially when you’re starting more or less from scratch.

Confidence ≠ Competency

Consider also, the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which predicts levels of confidence based on one’s competency.  What you might expect is that confidence would generally increase with competency, with novices having significantly less self-assuredness than experts.  However, that’s not what the study observed.  Instead, they found that novices are much more likely to presume they know far more than they actually do, often feeling more self-confident than those who have mastered their field.  Consider the college student, fresh out of their first semester of classes. With what self-assurance and conviction do they make their proclamations and assertions, not realizing that they have yet to learn, either by experience or additional training, so much of what they’ll need to do their job well.  

Going back to our car analogy, it’s one thing to know that cars need their oil changed regularly.  It’s another thing entirely to know that a 1970 Triumph TR6 has a square oil drain plug – and it’s another thing entirely still to have learned how to reliably remove said drain plug without stripping it or getting oil all over your face.  Training and experience are needed, and without those two components, you’ll often find yourself in big trouble.      

It should come as no surprise, then, that many of the early heresies taught by SDA founders (denial of the Trinity, denial of the eternality of Jesus, denial of the personhood of the Spirit, works-based righteousness etc.) would eventually be softened if not outright corrected as the leaders and their movement evolved.  The movement’s official Encyclopedia of the SDA confirms this, describing the SDA’s warming to the foundational creeds of the Christian faith. It’s interesting to note how their early view on creeds was not primarily convictional, but reactionary in nature:

“The founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who emerged after the Great Disappointment of October 22, 1844, shared the Christian Connexion’s and the Disciples of Christ’s belief about creeds. Creeds were the basis upon which they had been expelled from their former churches and were also the reason why Seventh-day Adventists had been rejected by other Advent groups. Their peculiar beliefs regarding the seventh-day Sabbath, the sanctuary, the state of the dead, and, later, the visions of Ellen G. White (1827-1915) set them apart from other movements and established churches. With the experience of rejection still fresh in their minds, they wrote forcefully against creed-making. For example, in 1847, Bates asserted that creeds hampered the progressive nature of revelation; truth is always unfolding in fresh and relevant ways to every generation. Creeds would fix the understanding of truth, making it rigid and unchanging.”  

Finney’s Legacy

As we draw this historical analysis to a close, what should we make of Finney and the fruit of his labors.  I think there are two ditches we ought to avoid.  I don’t think we can dismiss Finney and his movement out of hand simply because it furrowed the ground that allowed heresy and error to sprout up.  Nor should we raise him high on a pedestal as a hero of the faith to be emulated without caution or caveat.  Instead, I would suggest we consider his legacy with nuance, both recognizing that likely many came to true, saving faith because of his preaching, while also recognizing that his downplaying of the importance of theology and his over-emphasis on moral reform laid the groundwork for more error to come.  

Of course, we are not omnipresent.  We’re not omniscient.  Even with all the data we do have, it’s woefully insufficient to rightly tally up the scores and see if Finney did more harm than good, but what we can rest assured of is that God used Finney, as He pleased, for the good of His people, the judgment of the world, and the glory of His Name – all with divinely perfect proportion and impeccable timing. 

Fertile Ground for Modern Error

But what about today?  Perhaps you’ve seen the meme that’s been making the rounds: “Remember before we had the internet and people thought the cause of stupidity was due to a lack of access to information?  Yeah, it wasn’t that.”  Today, we have access to an ever-growing wealth of information at our fingertips, but like the 12,000 options you’ll find on Amazon for almost any query that cause decision paralysis, the issue isn’t having enough information, but making good sense of it all. 

Have you ever been on a road trip, listening to a radio station, only to have the staticy interference of another station slowly begin to take over what you’re listening to?  I think that’s the picture we should have of the democratized information overload of our day.  Even in researching this article, there’s been dozens of sources I’ve examined, and not all say the same thing, making the determination of truth mentally taxing and incredibly rigorous.  In the TLDR (Too Long Didn’t Read) malaise of our day – a time when critical thinking is at an all-time low – we are incredibly vulnerable to a new generation of error and heresy.     

Consider, if you will, the latest State of Theology study by Ligonier and Lifeway.  The study offers a snapshot of religious understanding in the United States, and especially among those who claim some form of Christian beliefs.  Earlier this year, they came out with the results from their 2025 survey, revealing a continued pattern of alarming doctrinal illiteracy.  And what’s scary, is that this pattern extends to those who claim to be evangelicals and attend an evangelical church at least once a week. In this group, where you would think there would be the least error, we see many alarming statistics.  Here’s just three: 

• 30% agree with the statement: “God accepts the worship of all religions, including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.” 
• 41% agree with the statement: “The Holy Spirit is a force but is not a personal being.” 
• 53% agree with the statement: “Everyone is born innocent in the eyes of God.” 

This is what our churches’ most faithful attenders believe!  What these numbers indicate isn’t merely that there is a risk of error and heresy in our churches, but that error and heresy have already come home to roost – even among devout, evangelical, church-going people. This is a pandemic of error eating away at the very foundations of American Evangelicalism, that left unaddressed, may prove to be the death knell for the Evangelical church in America.

Error’s Antidote

“1 I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. 5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.” 

2 Timothy 4:1-5, NASB1995 

So, what can we do to combat the theological ignorance that seems so rampant in our churches?  Here’s six Biblical practices to help safeguard the church:

1. Test for Truth – 1 John 4:1 calls us to test the spirits – and given the context, I believe that would include a call to examine truth claims – to see if they are false. Likewise, consider the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11, who were praised for testing what they heard from Paul and Silas by examining the Scriptures.  1 Thessalonians 5:21 commands us to examine everything carefully.  As Christians, it is our duty to weigh what we hear and think – especially when it is novel – against the Word of God and its emphasis on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.   
2. Contend for the Faith – Jude 1:3 appeals to us to “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.”  Unlike the anti-credal claims of SDA founder Joseph Bates, who suggested that truth (or at least proper expressions of it) changes and evolves over time, Jude argues that truth is unchanging, and that truth must be fervently contended for.  The Greek word for contend describes a struggle, battle or fight.  We are to stand up and fight for the truth.  And in order to do that, we must of course rightly know the truth.  
3. Hold Fast – If contending for the faith is offensive battle, then holding fast is defensive warfare.  Philippians 2:16 describes Christians as those who are “holding fast to the word of life.” Colossians 2:16f warns against those who “act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day”, declaring that they are not “holding fast to the head”.  1 Thessalonians 5:21 also calls us to hold fast to what is good by examining everything carefully.  Titus 1:9 commands us to be “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that [we] will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.”  In order to preserve the faith we have tested, we must hold onto it tightly.       
4. Be Skeptical of Novelty – We live in an age that caters to tickled ears that chase after novelty.  As CS Lewis described it, we’re prone to a chronological snobbery that considers what is new to be more valuable.  When it comes to doctrine, be very wary of new doctrinal discoveries.  Nine times out of ten, maybe 99 out of 100, what you’ll find is that this new understanding is actually just an ancient error or heresy with a modern-sounding veneer.  
5. Consider the Big Picture – One of the reasons it took so long for sound systematic theology to materialize in the early church is because it takes a gigantic amount of work to synthesize doctrine from something the size and scope of the Bible.  If you take a verse out of context, there is almost an endless variety of false doctrines you can support, but if you seek to put that interpretation to the test against the full counsel of Scripture, such heresies cannot stand.  
6. Catechize Your People – Whether you’re a parent, a college student leading a Bible study, or a pastor in a church, the church desperately needs a solid and reliable framework of truth upon which to build their life and beliefs. Deuteronomy 6:4-8 commands us to hold the Word of God ever before us, lest we forget.  Paul’s charge in 2 Timothy 4 provides a superb outline of the call and benefits of focusing on God’s Word.  And by contrast, Israel’s unfolding story, such as we see in Judges 3:7, paints for us the dreadful cost of forgetting the Lord and His teachings.   

What to Say of the SDA?

Coming full circle, what should we make of the SDA?  Given the history and reformations of the movement, its lingering error and peculiar emphases, what should we say? Can someone who embraces this movement truly be a Christian?  If we have a friend in the SDA, should we encourage them to leave?  Are the modern teachings of the SDA heterodoxical or do some views rise to the level of heresy? 

Pastor and author Randy Alcorn, who has done significant research into the SDA, offers the following helpful analysis: “From my perspective, parts of the SDA church have experienced the equivalent of a reformation, and parts have held on tenaciously to the heritage of Ellen G. White, and a number fall in between. Those who talk most about White tend to talk least, in my opinion, about the true Jesus and sound biblical doctrine.”

With that said, in general I do not believe that the SDA is a healthy place for a believer.  Even within the context of more reformed-minded SDA churches, there is still significant error and emphases that do not seem conducive to a Christian’s growth in the grace of Christ and the pride-killing glory of the Gospel.  In my experience, the SDA seems to focus on the minors, at times to the neglect of the majors. Because of their doctrinal distinctives, there seems to be a tendency toward legalism, and while the more evangelical expressions of this movement may not rise to the level of a cult, they do share (though to a lesser degree) the tendency to elevate man and diminish God, as well as other proclivities (such as claiming all other denominations apostate) that at least suggest they are cult-adjacent. For any or all of these reasons, I believe it is wise to urge and plead with those who go to an SDA church to find a better church home – and especially so if they attend a more traditional SDA place of worship.

However, I want to caution against the presumptuous claim that a devout SDA member cannot be a true Christian.  Echoing Alcorn, I believe there is a continuum, with true faith being more likely among those who hold more loosely to the foundational teachings of the SDA. 

So, is the SDA a somewhat quirky but valid evangelical denomination, or should it be considered a cult? From my limited exploration into the movement and its doctrinal distinctives, I don’t think the question is conducive to a single conclusion.  There’s a lot of nuance needed.  If I were to put all the evidence on the scale, there would likely be more weight on the cult side of the scale as a whole – specifically around several doctrines which they universally embrace, such as sanctuary doctrine, the veneration of Ellen White’s writings, and their denial of eternal suffering.  However, when you add to that the traditional views which deny the Trinity and the personhood of the Spirit, I believe the evidence becomes overwhelming that those expressions of the movement, in particular, should be condemned as apostate and heretical.  Whereas the more evangelically reformed-minded expressions of the SDA are probably best regarded as heterodoxical, at least in practice. Though even here, I think an argument can be made that the error they espouse may undermine the salvific doctrines of the faith, and thereby be considered heresy.

“For who regards you as superior? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?” 

1 Corinthians 4:7, NASB1995

Regardless, as Christians, we are called to be gracious and gentle as we seek to restore and correct those in error. Absolutely everything right we know – every good thing we believe – even our very faith itself – is a gift of God’s grace and leaves no room for boasting. Though the Word of God may stand judgment over the doctrines of men, and though it be our duty to uphold such judgments, we must not do so in pride. For our sound doctrine is as much a gift of God’s grace as any other good thing we receive – and apart from that grace, we too would be in the pit of error. No, our motive should be heartfelt love that flows from a rescuer’s heart.

May the Lord be pleased to draw us all ever close to Him – using His Word and His people to rescue sinners from their sin and error, for the good of His church, the joy of His people, and the glory of His name!