QUESTION#1. "WHAT DOES 'INFALLIBLE SOURCE OF TRUTH' MEAN?"

The question we will answer in this series is just one of the 11 questions sent to Former Adventist Philippines, which we will refer to as "Bro. Ben," a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church for 11 years from Pampanga.

According to Bro. Ben:

"Honestly, I prefer to be open-minded about information rather than doubt immediately. If I doubt right away, I will become biased. I just want to be open-minded—not a defender of the SDA nor an attacker. I know there are many recorded pieces of information that I have yet to explore. My focus right now is on all the controversial books that contain the secrets of the SDA. I believe that the only way to truly understand this church is to read the writings of people who have no hidden secrets they wish to conceal. Personally, I believe there are no perfect infallible doctrines found in any church. The only infallible source is Scripture alone. So, I want to thank you now because you seem to be able to help broaden my knowledge. I will take advantage of this opportunity while you are still strong. It's rare for me to meet someone like you who has extensive studies and has read many different resources that are hard to obtain. I also pray for you, Bro., that you may have a long life. Because of you, I have many things I want to read now. You are the one who opened up these controversies."

I also asked him if it was okay to share our upcoming Bible study on this blog, and by God's grace, he agreed on one condition: that I do not reveal his real name. I pray to the Lord that our Bible study will be an instrument to reach many Seventh-day Adventists who remain open-minded and continue to seek the truth, like Bro. Ben.

To begin this Bible study, let’s start with Question #1:

Question#1. "What does 'infallible source of truth mean?"

Answer:

The "infallible source of truth" refers to a source of truth that is without error. This means it is a reliable source of information or knowledge that is considered always correct and never wrong. For conservative evangelical Christians, the Holy Scriptures or the Bible, regarded as the one Spirit-inspired Word of God, is the infallible source of truth. There is no other need because, for them, the Bible is sufficient as the final arbiter of truth.

Thus, it is unnecessary for anyone to read the writings of the recognized messenger of God and prophet of the Seventh-day Adventist church, Ellen G. White, to determine what is right and wrong for our salvation. Although the SDA leadership does not officially admit that her writings can be considered an infallible source of truth, they indirectly believe that Ellen G. White's writings are infallible based on their explanations in their readings. As a result, the authority of Ellen G. White is seen as equal to the authority of the Bible for the following reasons:

The SDA church believes that Ellen G. White's writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit just as the Bible is inspired.

According to the SDA statement of belief #17 (1983) and #18 (2005), "The Gift of Prophecy," it is believed that this was fulfilled in the ministry of Ellen G. White, and for SDAs, she is "the Lord's messenger; her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth."

Since the SDA church believes that Ellen G. White's inspiration is akin to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that guided the apostles and prophets who wrote the 66 books of the Bible, Ellen G. White's authority is therefore also equal to the authority of the Bible because their processes of inspiration are the same. If the product of the inspiration of the apostles and prophets resulted in the infallible Word of God, in the same way, the product of Ellen G. White's inspiration would also produce infallible writings outside the Bible.

SDA theologians argue that while both Ellen G. White's writings and the Bible are supposedly inspired, they are not equal because Ellen G. White's writings are not included in the canon (official list) of Scriptures. They refer to these as "non-canonical" inspired writings. However, I believe this is not a sufficient reason for the SDAs to defend the view that Ellen G. White's writings have lesser authority than the Bible for the following reasons:

1.) If the SDA believes that Ellen G. White's writings are equally inspired as the Bible, why were they not included in the Bible? I believe that all inspired writings that make up our Bible today were intentionally included by God to be part of the official canon of the Scriptures. If, for example, the Apostle Paul wrote something that was not included in our New Testament, it is because God did not intend for it to be part of the inspired Scriptures for all people, and most importantly, it was not inspired by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 5:9; Col. 4:16).

2.) How can the SDAs claim that Ellen G. White's writings, which they say are inspired, are a "continuing authoritative source of truth" if they were not intended to be included in the canon of Scriptures? If the SDAs continue to believe that Ellen G. White's writings are a "continuing authoritative source of truth," despite the fact that they are not included in the canon of Scriptures, does that not mean they will have two authoritative and inspired sources of truth? Does this not indirectly admit that the SDA church believes that the Bible alone is not sufficient?

This is why, in their statements of belief about the Bible, we do not read that they believe in the "sufficiency of the Scriptures," which has been upheld by Reformed Christians since the 16th-century Protestant Reformation. For this reason, the Seventh-day Adventist Church should not be included in the legacy of the Protestant Reformation, even though they claim this in their publications. First, they are opposed to Sola Scriptura, for them, the Bible is not sufficient and is not the only final authority on faith and practice.

We can also say that although the SDAs vehemently deny that they believe Ellen G. White's writings are infallible, this contradicts their teaching that her writings are also "inspired" like the Bible. If the SDAs believe the Bible is infallible because it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, they must also accept that Ellen G. White's writings are infallible, because according to them, the process of inspiration of these is the same as that of the Bible. Therefore, if Ellen G. White's writings are not infallible, then neither will the Bible be infallible, because according to them, the source and process of inspiration of the Bible and Ellen G. White's writings are the same! Since Ellen G. White's writings are inspired by the Holy Spirit, then they can also be considered an infallible source of truth, alongside the inspired writings already in the Bible.

In conclusion, in response to the question, "What does an infallible source of truth mean?" from an SDA member who is earnestly seeking the truth, we should recognize that only the Bible is the infallible source of truth. It is the only authoritative work inspired by the Holy Spirit, making it infallible and never wrong or misleading in the truths it teaches, especially regarding the salvation of our souls. The Bible is called the "Word of God" because what is written therein is the product of God's breath (theopneustos, God-breathed), according to 2 Timothy 3:16, thus making it sufficient for the salvation of anyone. We do not need the so-called inspired writings of Ellen G. White or anyone claiming to be a messenger of God.

"THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS CONFUSION ON THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS!"

Pastor Ronald Obidos

The doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness is central to Christian theology, emphasizing that believers are declared righteous before God not because of their own works but because of Christ's perfect obedience and sacrifice. The biblical doctrine of the imputation of Christ's active and passive obedience is a nuanced theological position that emphasizes the comprehensive nature of Christ's work in the salvation of believers. This doctrine asserts that both the active obedience (Christ's perfect adherence to God's law) and passive obedience (His suffering and death) are imputed to believers, providing a complete basis for their justification and sanctification.

Firstly, the active obedience of Christ refers to His perfect fulfillment of the law on behalf of humanity. According to Reformed Arminianism, this obedience is imputed to believers, meaning that Christ's righteousness is credited to them. This concept is supported by passages such as Romans 5:19, which states, 

"For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man, the many will be made righteous." Romans 5:19 (NIV)

However, among Seventh-day Adventists (SDA), there appears to be confusion surrounding this doctrine, particularly in how it is understood and applied. From a biblical perspective, this confusion is rooted in the SDA's blend of legalism, sanctification emphasis, and their distinctive view of salvation, which sometimes blurs the line between justification and sanctification. This essay will explore the SDA's theological confusion on the imputation of Christ's righteousness, contrast it with biblical thought, and highlight the potential spiritual consequences of such a misunderstanding.

Secondly, the passive obedience of Christ involves His suffering and death on the cross, which pays the penalty for sin. This aspect of Christ's work is also imputed to believers, ensuring that the punishment for their sins has been fully borne by Christ. Isaiah 53:5 underscores this truth: 

"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds, we are healed." Isaiah 53:5 (NIV)

Thirdly, the imputation of both active and passive obedience is essential for a holistic understanding of salvation. The Bible argues that without the imputation of Christ's active obedience, believers would only be forgiven but not righteous. Conversely, without the imputation of His passive obedience, they would remain under the penalty of sin. 2 Corinthians 5:21 encapsulates this dual imputation: 

"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21 (NIV)

This verse illustrates how Christ's sinlessness and His bearing of sin are both crucial for believers' righteousness.

Moreover, this doctrine emphasizes the grace of God in salvation. It underscores that salvation is entirely a work of God, from Christ's perfect life to His atoning death, and that believers contribute nothing to their justification. Ephesians 2:8-9 affirms this: 

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith —and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV) 

This passage reinforces the idea that salvation is a gift, made possible through the imputation of Christ's obedience. Hence, the doctrine of imputation asserts that believers are declared righteous because of Christ’s righteousness being credited to them. 

In contrast, the SDA's soteriology tends to focus heavily on sanctification and the believer’s obedience to the law, particularly the Ten Commandments. While they acknowledge justification by faith, many SDAs appear to conflate this with an ongoing process of righteousness being "infused" into the believer through obedience, rather than fully imputed as an external righteousness. This confusion leads to a misunderstanding of justification as a cooperative effort between Christ’s righteousness and the believer's works, which shifts the focus from grace to human effort. In the Bible, salvation is viewed as synergistic in terms of faith and grace, but justification itself is seen solely as God's declarative act, apart from human merit.

The SDA's confusion over Christ's imputed righteousness stems from their historical roots. The early Adventist movement was heavily influenced by the writings of Ellen G. White, who placed significant emphasis on obedience to the law and the investigative judgment. This has led to a view that sanctification, or the believer's moral transformation, plays a pivotal role in determining one’s final salvation. While the Bible also values sanctification as evidence of salvation, it is clear in distinguishing that justification is a one-time event, wholly reliant on Christ’s righteousness. Sanctification follows as the fruit of justification but does not contribute to it. The SDA’s doctrine, in contrast, sometimes places an undue burden on believers to maintain their righteousness before God, leading to legalistic tendencies.

The Bible also teaches that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers through faith alone, emphasizing the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and the believer’s complete reliance on His righteousness for justification. This view rejects any notion that human effort can contribute to one's standing before God in terms of justification. In SDA theology, however, the investigative judgment doctrine suggests that believers’ works will ultimately be reviewed to determine their final salvation, which introduces an element of uncertainty and fear. This concept diverges from the biblical assurance that justification is a finished work based entirely on Christ’s imputed righteousness, and not on any future judgment of works.

Furthermore, the confusion in the SDA’s understanding of imputed righteousness can have serious spiritual consequences. It may lead believers to doubt the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice and to struggle with assurance of salvation. If justification depends in any way on human works or obedience, then salvation can never be fully secure, as human effort is always imperfect. Such confusion detracts from the liberating truth of the gospel, which assures believers that their salvation is secure because it rests not on their efforts but on the imputed righteousness of Christ. This assurance fosters a life of grateful obedience, empowered by the Holy Spirit, rather than fear-based striving for righteousness.

In conclusion, from a biblical perspective, the SDA's confusion on the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness arises from an overemphasis on sanctification and a misunderstanding of justification as a process rather than a declarative act of God. By failing to clearly distinguish between justification and sanctification, SDA theology risks leading believers into legalism and uncertainty regarding their salvation. In contrast, biblical Christianity upholds that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers through faith alone, ensuring the believer’s justification and eternal security in Christ’s finished work. It is this understanding that preserves the balance between grace and human response without compromising the centrality of Christ's righteousness.

WHY WAS THE SABBATH NOT COMMANDED TO BE OBSERVED IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS?

Even modern Sabbath keepers admit that there is no command to observe the Sabbath throughout the book of Genesis. This is because God did not command the Sabbath to His faithful servants during that time, such as Adam, Eve, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and Joseph. The word "Sabbath" was never mentioned even by these servants of God.

This fact alone should be enough for Sabbath keepers if they truly respect the word of the Lord, who warns us, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Even Moses, who wrote the book of Genesis, was inspired by the Holy Spirit to issue a warning to everyone: “Do not add to or subtract from the word of God", so that it may remain intact (Deut. 4:2).

If Sabbath keepers themselves acknowledge that there is no mention of God commanding His faithful servants to observe the Sabbath in Genesis, why do they still believe that God commanded it?

Here are some common reasons we often hear from them, and how we can correct these misunderstandings:

ARGUMENT #1: “Genesis is not a book of commandments, but a book of origins.”

ANSWER:

If the book of Genesis is not a book of commandments, why do we read about God’s commands that are important to the faith of His servants? For example, God’s command to Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16-17). Why did Cain sin in the eyes of God when he killed his brother Abel? Sabbath keepers even use this as proof that the Ten Commandments already existed during their time (Gen. 4:8-15). Another example is Joseph, who avoided adultery because he considered it a sin against God. Sabbath keepers argue that Joseph knew it was a sin because the Ten Commandments were already in effect during his time (Gen. 39:7-9). Similarly, Jacob commanded his household to get rid of their idols. How could he have done this if the Ten Commandments, which forbid the worship of other gods, did not yet exist during his time (Gen. 35:2)? If Sabbath keepers claim that the Ten Commandments were already present in Genesis, why was the Sabbath never mentioned even once?

In short, the argument that Genesis is not a book of commandments is false, as the examples above proved. For Sabbath keepers, the importance of the commands to Adam and Eve, Cain, Joseph, and Jacob should be as significant as the command regarding the Sabbath—if not more so. If this is the case, why was there never a mention of God commanding the Sabbath to them, even once? Isn’t this proof that the Sabbath did not exist during the time of these ancestors of the Israelites? Even Moses, who wrote Genesis, stated, “The Lord did not establish this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today” (Deut. 5:3).

It is clear that Genesis is not just a book of history or origins, as it contains commandments that express God’s will to strengthen His relationship with His faithful servants. If the Sabbath, which Sabbath keepers consider such an important command for the relationship between God and man, were truly that significant, why was it never mentioned or commanded by God to His servants in the book of Genesis? The reason is that the weekly seventh-day Sabbath as a command did not yet exist. It was only commanded to the Israelites after their deliverance from Egypt through Moses (Neh. 9:10-14; Ezek. 20:10-12).

According to the Apostle Paul’s interpretation in Galatians 3:17, the law, including the Sabbath, was only added 430 years after Abraham's time. This shows that the Sabbath was not commanded during the time of Adam, Eve, or their descendants until Abraham. Christians are on the right path if they follow Paul's interpretation, which shows there was no command regarding the Sabbath from Adam and Eve to Abraham because this is the truth.

ARGUMENT #2:“God blessed and sanctified the seventh day, so it is a special day.”

ANSWER:

According to Genesis 2, what God blessed and made holy was not the "Sabbath" (noun) but the "seventh day." The verse says: “On the seventh day God finished His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it He rested from all the work that He had done in creation” (Gen. 2:2-3).

The noun "Sabbath" is never used in Genesis, so it is a big mistake for anyone to interpret that the "Sabbath" (noun) was immediately blessed, sanctified, or rested by God in this book. The Holy Spirit did not choose the word "Sabbath" when Moses wrote Genesis 2, but "seventh day." This was God’s intention and the terminology He chose. We would be wrong to replace His inspired word.

This is yet another strong testimony from the Lord that the "Sabbath" did not yet exist for God’s servants mentioned in Genesis. Moreover, we do not read that it was commanded by God to them, and the term "Sabbath" (noun) is never used in Genesis. The term only began to be used after the nation of Israel was freed from Egyptian bondage (Exo. 16:23-27; Ezek. 20:10-12).

Sabbath keepers must also understand that in Genesis, the "seventh day of God" and the "seventh day of man" (Adam and Eve) are different. Here are the reasons:

1.) The “seventh day of God” is not a literal 24-hour day marked by “evening and morning,” which only applies to our planet Earth. Therefore, we should not be surprised that no mention is made of "evening and morning" on the seventh day (Gen. 2:1-3), because it was God who rested on the “seventh day,” not man. This is a unique seventh day of God, and Adam and Eve were not included in this rest. If Sabbath keepers insist that Adam and Eve were part of the "seventh day" of God's rest, then they should also acknowledge that Adam and Eve were co-creators and part of the creation process, resting alongside God, but that is not the case.

The writer of Hebrews understood that the “seventh day of God” is a long period of time, as it says:

Hebrews 4:1, 3, 4, 7, 9 (NLT) "God’s promise of entering his rest still stands, so we ought to tremble with fear that some of you might fail to experience it. . . For only we who believe can enter his rest. As for the others, God said, “In my anger I took an oath: ‘They will never enter my place of rest,’ ”even though this rest has been ready since he made the world. . . We know it is ready because of the place in the Scriptures where it mentions the seventh day: “On the seventh day God rested from all his work. . .  So God set another time for entering his rest, and that time is today. God announced this through David much later in the words already quoted: “Today when you hear his voice, don’t harden your hearts. . . So there is a special rest still waiting for the people of God."

It is clear that the “seventh day rest of God” is not a literal 24-hour day, as observed by the Jews and the Sabbath keepers today. Thus, it is incorrect to say that the "rest of God" is the same as the weekly Sabbath—a 24-hour day Sabbath.

2.) The “seventh day of God” was only the "second day" of existence for Adam and Eve on Earth. Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day (Gen. 1:27-31). Therefore, the seventh day for Adam and Eve was only their "second day" on Earth. Hence, it's not surprising that there is no mention of God commanding humans to observe the Sabbath in Genesis 2. First, the noun "Sabbath" is not used in this passage, and second, God's "seventh day" and humanity's "seventh day" are not the same.

ARGUMENT #3: “God Himself rested on the Sabbath day, and the reason for its observance was reiterated in Exodus 20.”

ANSWER:

We must be cautious with the statements of Sabbath keepers because they often misinterpret the Bible compared to what is actually written. Let us follow the example of the Berean Christians, who, according to Paul, were noble because “they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so” (Acts 17:11). If we apply this to our topic, we must examine the Scriptures to see if Sabbath keepers' claims that God Himself observed the Sabbath are true. Let us return to Genesis 2 to check if we can find proof that God observed the Sabbath.

“And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy because on it He rested from all the work of creating that He had done” (Gen. 2:3).

What did God sanctify according to Genesis 2:3? Was it the "Sabbath" or the "seventh day"? The correct answer is the "seventh day." We've already established that God's seventh day is eternal, unlike man's seventh day, which is limited to 24 hours, so they are different. It is also true that this was reiterated in Exodus 20:11: "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

However, we should note that this verse does not support the view of Sabbath keepers for two reasons:

1.) The passage does not say that God "rested on the Sabbath day." Instead, it actually states that God "rested on the seventh day." We have already established that God’s seventh day is not a 24-hour day, unlike the assumption of the Sabbath keepers that it is merely a 24-hour earthly day.

2.) Sabbath keepers have misinterpreted the second part of Exodus 20:11, which says, "the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy," as though this "Sabbath" had already been blessed, sanctified, and observed by God since Genesis 2. However, this conclusion is incorrect. The key to properly interpreting this passage lies in understanding the entire sentence. Here is the complete second part of Exodus 20:11b: "Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." The phrase "therefore" signifies a cause-and-effect relationship, showing the result of a situation. For example: "He studied hard, therefore he passed the exam." In this sentence, "therefore" shows that his passing the exam was the result of his hard work.

In the same way, when Exodus 20:11b states, "Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy," it refers to the outcome following Moses’ introduction of God’s seventh day of creation week to the Israelites. Moses used God's non-24-hour, seventh day as the model for Israel's newly established weekly Sabbath at the foot of Mount Sinai. Thus, the statement "the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" is not about what happened in Genesis, but rather about the time when Moses introduced and instructed Israel for the first time on the pattern of God's own seventh day in creation.

This correct explanation is supported by the SDAs own Clear Word Bible:

“Because in six days, I, the Lord your God, created the earth, the sky, the seas and everything in them, and on the seventh day I rested in the joy of having made it all. That’s why I blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy, so you can rest and rejoice with me.”

CONCLUSION:

We understand from the testimony of the Bible that God’s faithful servants mentioned in Genesis were never commanded to observe the Sabbath. First, in Genesis 2, the word "Sabbath" was not mentioned in noun form. Second, Genesis is not merely a book of history or origins; it also contains God’s commandments to His servants during different periods, suited to their needs to maintain a good relationship with Him. If the Sabbath was truly a crucial part of worshiping God, why was it never mentioned? What does this imply? It means that the belief of Sabbath keepers, who continue to hold on to this false notion, does not align with the truth.

I pray that the Lord will use this reading to open their minds to the true teachings of the Bible, rather than to fabricated beliefs that attempt to show the Sabbath was already present in Genesis, even though it is not mentioned. They have to make assumptions and add to God’s word to justify their claims.