A number of groups and persons have voiced criticisms of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which are summarized below.

Outsider criticisms of Seventh-day Adventism

Cult status

Disputes have arisen among Evangelical counter-cult authors over whether Seventh-day Adventism is a cult, as is, a group which deviate from their views on biblical orthodoxy.

In the late 1950s, Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse classified Adventism as non-cultic (For Martin, this was a reversal of his earlier classification (in 1955) of Adventists as a cult.) Many evangelicals followed this advice, and continue to do so today, accepting Adventism as an orthodox Christian denomination, even though it holds a few doctrines that are seen as different from mainline Christian churches. This can be viewed as an increasing acceptance of the Adventist church into the Christian fold, since many of these other Christian groups were previously very much opposed to Adventist teaching — or alternatively as a symptom of the transformation of much of Evangelicalism into Neo-evangelicalism, accepting of heterodoxy.

Others have rejected accepting Adventism as an orthodox Christian denomination, including, for example, John Whitcomb, Jr. Allegations of Adventist insularism and warnings about mixing with non-Christians and even non-Adventists, and the importance placed on Adventist education for children add to allegations of cult-like behaviour. In their own defense, Adventists argue that their educational system is designed to instill character and faith in their children; indeed, Adventist schools are open to all.

Anti-Catholicism

The writings of Ellen White appear to be relentlessly anti-Catholic in tone, ascribing a generally conspiratorial nature to the Roman Church in preparation for a nefarious eschatological role as the antagonist of God's true remnant. In The Great Controversy pg. 508 she says, "God’s word has given warning of the impending danger; let this be unheeded, and the Protestant world will learn what the purposes of Rome really are, only when it is too late to escape the snare. She is silently growing into power. Her doctrines are exerting their influence in legislative halls, in the churches, and in the hearts of men. She is piling up her lofty and massive structures, in the secret recesses of which her former persecutions will be repeated. Stealthily and unsuspectingly she is strengthening her forces to further her own ends when the time shall come for her to strike." These kinds of statments make it easy for Adventists to lapse into anti-Catholic bigotry.

In their defense Adventists maintain that their views regarding eschatology are anti-papal but not necessarily anti-Catholic. Although the rhetoric in many Adventist churches is virulently anti-Catholic in tone and content. Also there is a deplorable tendency to use questionable sources to attack the Catholic Church. Eschatological historicism was the mainstream theological view since the Reformation, but many denominations have, especially in the last 50 years or so, been abandoning this system. Adventism, in short, as one of the last bastions of historicism, claims to be the most historically orthodox and mainstream Protestant stream of Christianity.

Works based teaching

Some critics argue that Seventh-day Adventists' focus on the Sabbath places a focus on works rather than grace. Adventists counter that their emphasis upon the Sabbath is no different that other denominations particular calls to other important behavior such as acts of Kindness or Service. Critics of Adventist doctrine argue that the Adventist church, in accepting Ellen G. White as a prophet and her writings as inspired, is putting forward another source of authority in addition to the Bible. This they view as contrary to the traditional Protestant sola scriptura view of the Bible as the sole inspired source of authority, and the rejection of any claims to latter-day prophets. Adventists maintain that they view Ellen G. White and her writings in a subservient role with regards to the Bible (as she herself does).

Christology

They also criticise the Christology taught by Ellen G. White as inaccurate and heterodox. For example, White taught that "Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature… Christ took human nature and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He took our nature and its deteriorating condition" (Questions on Doctrine, pp. 654–656). By contrast, the traditional teaching of Christianity (both Protestant and Catholic) is that Christ's human nature was sinless. However, Ellen White also affirms that Christ was completely sinless. Thus many Adventists argue that Christ's taking of human nature related to sickness, disease, the feeling of hunger, etc., and not to any moral propensity to sin.

Ellen White also seemed to adhere to a form of Nestorianism that isolated Christ's divinity from his humanity. In manuscript 140, SDA Commentary V, p. 1129 she wrote, "The man Christ Jesus was not the Lord God Almighty". Often times, such statements quoted from White can better explained by a survey of her writings. Unfortunately, her catalogues of books and republished collections are so vast that few individuals find the time to do any other research than to provide such limited quotes provided above. This helps to further confuse actual SDA belief regarding White, as well as her actual teachings.

Annihilationism

Critics also view the Adventist belief in annihilationism as unbiblical. They point to various biblical passages which contradict annihilationism, for example Luke 16:19–31, which they argue clearly indicates that the dead are presently conscious in Heaven or Hell, not in some kind of soul sleep. Compare this with the description of Lazarus as asleep given by Jesus in John 11:12–14. Also consider the view of Luke 16:19–31 from the perspective of those believing in annihilationism, which is that those verses are a parable taught by Jesus, not actual events. Further, they assert that the parable was not even originated by Jesus, but was a common folk tale used by Jesus to teach a theological truth about generosity.

Investigative Judgment and Salvation

Critics allege that Ellen G. White taught that belief in the doctrine of "investigative judgement" is necessary for salvation. Again, a proof quote from one of her books, The Great Controversy (p. 488) suffices as evidence.

The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgement should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs for them to fill.

At the same time, those familiar with Christian culture and society at large would be aware that

He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;

He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:

Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!

Our God is marching on.

It must then be asked whether the concept of God weighing the deeds of men pre-advent is indeed a cultic fantasy or perhaps something worth seriously considering. Of course, there are sound scriptural evidences for the position advocated by Adventism, but this idea was not alone in the universe.

It has been noted by several other Christian groups that in recent years the Adventist leadership has de-emphasised several of the uniquely Adventist doctrines, in favour of an emphasis on the basic Christian beliefs they share with other Christians, which renders the Adventist church less problematic on the whole from the perspective of other Christians. Some groups of traditionalist Seventh-day Adventists, however, are rather cross at the Adventist Church leadership for doing this, and a few have left the Adventist church to form splinter groups as a result.

Response to Outsider Criticism of Adventism

Regarding Cult Status

It might be worth saying that many or most Adventist beliefs, while seemingly unusual, are more often unconventional but not necessarily outside historical mainstream Christianity. Adventists would certainly reject that any of their beliefs are cultish. Most of their beliefs have existed within mainstream Christianity, if not on the fringes, in one way or the other, since the earliest days of the Church. Adventist would argue that their beliefs are:

1. biblical;

2. were mainstream and orthodox once, but have over time been lost (especially as Christianity evolved and syncretised with pagan beliefs from the 3rd Century A.D. onwards).

It is also important to remember that many beliefs which mainstream US evangelic Christians consider as 'normal and mainstream', are in fact recent doctrinal creations, often being in existence less than a few centuries. A classic example might be evangelical views of eschatology (end time events), namely dispensationalism, which teaches in a rapture, the rebuilding of a literal temple and that the Jews are still God’s chosen people. Although 30 million evangelicals, especially in the US, believe that this view of the end times, the truth is this doctrine essentially did not exist until John Nelson Darby formulated it in the 1830s.

There is a real danger in thinking Adventist beliefs are cultish or outside ‘mainstream’ Christianity when more often than not ‘mainstream’ evangelical views are in fact a more recent and unorthodox phenomenon. Many Adventist beliefs such as the role and importance of Jesus for salvation, salvation by grace, or the trinity are in fact very mainstream. Other Christians (and even many Adventists) emphasise other beliefs more for their peculiarity and than importance within an Adventist theological system.

In response to the specific doctrinal criticisms raised, it is the purpose of this article to show that most if not all of these beliefs have existed (if on the fringes) within mainstream Christianity for well over 2,000 years. It is on this basis that Adventists would never see themselves as inventing doctrinal concepts, but rather restoring old and forgotten ones.

Works based teaching

Adventists would totally reject any proposition that Adventists have taught, either in the past or present, in works based teaching. The truth is Adventists have always maintained that the gift of salvation is only through the grace of Jesus Christ and not works. Works has always been seen as something God does to the individual after they accept Christ to make them a better person, but has no actual reflection on whether they will be saved or not.

A thorough look of Adventist theology shows that since that its inception, Adventists have always taught the mainstream concepts of justification and sanctification. Justification is God’s gift which saves the individual while sanctification is the natural by-product (but not the perquisite) of the Holy Spirit who changes the person. Adventist beliefs in this area are no different from Roman Catholic, Orthodox or mainstream conservative Protestant beliefs.

Some misconceptions regarding Adventists may have arisen in this area because:

1. Some individuals (but not the official Church) have taught and lived their lives very much by a salvation by works mentality. This is probably exacerbated by the fact that Adventists appear more work based because they believe in keeping the Sabbath and other food and social taboos. However this is no difference from any other Christian denomination which teaches against sexual immorality, stealing or any other commandment. The truth is that there exists in every Christian denomination individuals who live their lives in a very pharisaic manner.

2. I think that some Christians (especially within Evangelical Christianity) see Adventists as works based solely because Adventist’s reject Calvinistic doctrinal teachings such as election and forced grace, which hold the ‘once saved always saved line.’ Again, a closer review of Christianity will demonstrate that Adventists, by rejecting Calvinist theology, are actually more in line with traditional, orthodox Christianity. It is the Evangelicals, especially the dispensationalists, Pentecostals and other followers of the doctrine of ‘Prosperity Gospel’, who arguably swing the pendulum too much in the other way.

Christology

Assumptions about the Adventist position on Christology are totally incorrect. 3 particular assumptions mentioned above really need to be clarified and corrected.

''''== There is no official ‘Adventist’ view on Christology ==''''(See page on Christology for further information, particularly on the Adventist view of the nature of Jesus Christ).

First of all, a quick view on the General Conference of the Seventh Day Adventist’s Official Theological website ‘Biblical Research Institute’ will make it clear that debate still rages as to the subject of Christology. The more ‘traditional’ view within Adventism rejected the Roman Catholic notion of original sin, and instead taught that Christ took on the nature of a sinful man (i.e. the human frailties of humans) but not any actual sin or guilt.

There has been a move however in recent times amongst many Adventist scholars to a more Augustinian (and therefore Roman Catholic and Calvanistic) concept of original sin and the nature of Christ. This view holds that sin is a state, not just an act, which we all inherit (i.e. original sin). However, in order for Christ to be therefore born a sinner, He must have had the nature of Adam before the fall, not after the fall.

The point is, debate over this issue is still undecided within Adventist circles. It is therefore incorrect to makes labels condemning Adventist doctrine when it isn’t even official doctrine at all.

== It is wrong to say Ellen White made heterodox statements on the nature of Christ ==Ellen White did indeed say "Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature… Christ took human nature and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He took our nature and its deteriorating condition" (Questions on Doctrine, pp. 654–656). However again, a quick look at the latest theological studies by Adventist scholars found on the ‘Biblical Research Institute’, will show that Ellen White actually says

One will soon discover that those who hold ‘traditional’ and ‘Augustinian’ views of Christology within Adventism both claim that their views are supported by statements of Ellen White.

== The ‘traditional’ Adventist view on Christology is actually older and more orthodox than modern ‘Protestant/Catholic’ views ==Notwithstanding that multiple views of Christology within the SDA Church still abound, it might be worth mentioning something about the ‘traditional’ Adventist view. Many might wrongly suppose that because this ‘traditional’ Adventist view rejects the Roman Catholic and Calvinistic views on original sin, Christ’s human nature before the fall, and the immaculate conception of Marry (a Catholic doctrine), that it is somehow a new doctrinal creation. This assumption could not be farther from the truth.

If one conducts a thorough study on the subject of original sin throughout Christendom, they will soon discover that ‘traditional’ Adventist views are actually much in line with Eastern Orthodox views on the subject. Eastern Orthodox Christians also reject the notion of original sin, and instead see that “introduction of sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for mankind, but tends to deny any inherited guilt (such as is involved in what Orthodox consider to be a very common Western concept of original sin) or any necessary corruption of man's nature” (from page on ‘Original Sin’.)

The Eastern Orthodox Church, being a Church of Greek, did not receive or accept Augustine’s Latin formulation of original sin in the late 4th, early 5th Centuray A.D. Adventist who hold the ‘traditional’ view might therefore argue that they are in fact believers of an older and more orthodox view of Christ and his nature.

== Conclusion ==

In conclusion, the proposition that Ellen White taught inaccurate and heterodox views on the nature of Christ are wrong because:

1. there is no official SDA position on Christology anyway;

2. Ellen White’s statements are used to support both views of Christology; and

3. ‘traditional’ Adventist views which reject notions of original sin are very similar to Eastern Orthodox understandings, and therefore arguably older and more orthodox than Calvinistic Protestant/Roman Catholic views.

Annihilationsim

Adventists agree that for the majority of Christian historicism, the traditional view of eternal torment in hell has predominated. Adventists however would also point out the following:

1. as a Protestant denomination, Adventists reject tradition as any source of authority. Adventist would therefore reject the authority of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople of 553 or other Church counsels and forums which uphold the traditional eternal torment view. Adventists would only accept authority based on ‘Sola Scriptoria’, the Bible and the Bible alone.

2. Adventists might admit that this is not necessarily an easily understood topic, however they would argue the weight of Biblical evidence does not support the concept of a Loving God torturing individuals by fire throughout history.

3. notwithstanding point 1, a detailed look at the history of the Church shows that there has been a constant, but minority view within Christianity which has rejected the concept of eternal torment in Hell.

Investigative Judgment and Salvation

The topic of the investigative judgment is in deed quite a peculiar and unique Adventist belief. In fact, it is probably the only Adventist belief that really belongs to Adventist’s alone. Almost every other belief is held in some way by other Christian denominations. For example the Sabbath (held by Seventh Day Baptists and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church), Trinity (Roman Catholics and ‘mainstream’ protestants), ‘traditional’ Christology (Eastern Orthodox Church), Annihilationism (Jehovah’s Witnesses) or Baptism by Full Immersion (Baptists).

The criticism above is right in saying that the doctrine has unfortunately been de-emphasised by many within the Adventist Church, especially the leadership. The doctrine has been challenged and debated for over nearly a decade, especially as a result of the challenges of Dr Desmond Ford. However the Church still firmly upholds the belief.

The only thing worth saying is that an Adventist would argue:

1. that no statement of Ellen White ever categorically states that belief in the investigative judgment is essential for salvation. The statement quoted above does not say that. In fact, the scriptures in Rom Chapter 2 are quite clear that a knowledge in Jesus is not necessarily a requirement for salvation;

3. the doctrine of the investigative judgment is supported by the weight of scripture; and

4. while it is a doctrine unique to Adventism most other Christian denominations touch on it, but just have never fully explored the concept. The doctrine revolves around the Old Sanctuary/Temple service of ancient Israel, and how it operated as a symbol, shadow or anti-type of Christ’s mission. The Old Testament Sanctuary was a symbol of the one in heaven (Moses built the one on earth after the pattern in Heaven see Ex 25:8,9,40, Act 7:44), it was a symbol of Christ and His mission (Christ said I will destroy this temple and rebuild it in 3 days, talking about His body see John 2:19-22), and it is a symbol of our bodies (where the Holy Spirit lives 1 Cor 3:15-17). All Christian denominations accept these views. The only big difference is that in Adventism, these concepts have been studied and expanded much further; and

5. the basic premise behind the investigative judgment is that in the Old Testament Sanctuary Service the sacrifice of the Lamb or Bullock was not the final step in the redemption of sin. The priest was then required to take that blood into the Holy or Most Holy place (on Yon Kippur) and offer it before the Shekina Glory. If the Old Testament service is a symbol of Christ’s ministry what does it tell us? It tells us that Christ is not just our sacrifice, He is our High Priest as well (see Hebrews Chapter 4).

Some points to note on some other Adventist beliefs that are commonly criticised - the Sabbath

It finally might be worth mentioning a few points on some other Adventist beliefs that are often the subject of criticism. The first is the Sabbath. In short, Adventists believe that the Seventh Day Sabbath, as espoused as the 4th Commandment, is still valid and was not changed by Jesus Christ. Adventist believe that there is no authority in the New Testament to advocate any change from Saturday to Sunday. Sabbath begins on Friday at sunset and finishes on Saturday sunset. Adventist Sabbath Keeping is similar to that of Jews, however is a lot more flexible and less rules based, as taught on numerous occasions by Jesus.

Adventists would claim the following:

1. that the Mosaic/ritual laws were done away with at the Cross. Therefore Levitical laws about ritual purity, the temple sacrificial service, circumcision, caste system (Jews as chosen people, Levites as more chosen temple workers and Cohen’s as even more chosen priests) are done away with. (Compare this to dispensationalists who hold that these laws do still apply for Jews). It is quite clear from the writings of Paul that this is the case.

Adventists, like most denominations, believe in the Noahide concept that Christian’s should keep the new covenant ‘law as written in your hearts and not on tables of stone’. The real question is when dealing with any Jewish type ordinance is whether ‘is this something God intended from the beginning, or was it just for Jews.’ A good example of this is Jesus comments on divorce, where He states God allowed Moses to accept divorce however it was not God’s original plan in Eden (see Mark 10) Most Christian’s would agree that this way of thinking is essential to understanding topics ranging from homosexuality to food taboos.

That said, is keeping the Sabbath just a Jewish thing (and therefore not necessary for Christians, just like circumcision) or is it a human thing (like not committing murder, adultery, stealing, or idols, therefore required by all followers of God). Mainstream Christians and even Jews would argue that it is just a Jewish thing, while Adventists would argue it is a human beings thing. Adventist would point out:

a. the Ten Commandments are different from the Mosiac law. While the Mosiac laws were done away with, the Ten Commandments were not. The New Covenant transferred the way they are kept from a rules based approach to a love based approach. The 2 greatest commandments just summarise the ten commandments (see Luke 10:27). Most mainstream Christians accept that the Ten Commandments are still applicable and binding.

b. if the Ten Commandments still apply, they ALL still apply. The same God which said ‘Thou Shalt Not Steal’ also said ‘Remember the Sabbath Day to Keep it Holy’.

c. the concept of the Sabbath existed before a people called the Jews existed. God established the Sabbath at creation (see Gen 2:1-3) God rested on the seventh day. The word in Hebrew for rest is literally Sabbath. One can also see that God blessed the day and made it Holy here at creation, thousands of years before mount Sinai. One will also note the creation reference in the 4th Commandment itself.

d. God did not institute the Sabbath at Mount Sinai (as most Jews believe) but re-instituted. It was something established at creation for man’s benefit (see above), but had been forgotten by the Children of Israel under 400 years of slavery. See God’s reference to ‘Remember the Sabbath’ and His reference to creation in the 4th Commandment.

e. If the Sabbath was only something established at Mount Sinai, then why were the Children of Israel forbidden from collecting manner on the 7th day (see Chapter 14). Notice this is Chapter 14, and Moses collects the commandments and the law at Chapter 20. Note how verse 30 that God gave the Sabbath. Again, note this is before the ten commandments and the law are given.

f. Was the Sabbath made for mankind or for Jewish kind. Jews say for them only. What should Christian’s say? What did Jesus say? Jesus said He is Lord of the Sabbath (see Matt 12) and that the Sabbath was made for man (note, not just the Jews), and not man for the Sabbath (see Mark 2).

g. the fact that the New Testament does not positively affirm the 4th Commandment does not mean that one can assume it is done away with. Rather, the New Testament does not positively deny it either. The burden of proof rests with those trying to show the Sabbath no longer applies, not with those who must show it still applies. As the Sabbath is a direct command from God, written with His own on the Ten Commandments, only definitive and authoritative instruction can remove its applicability.

h. the New Testament does not positively affirm the 2nd Commandment (fording the making of Idols) either. Does this mean that Christians can make idols? Most Christians would argue no (although a look into any Catholic or Orthodox Church might make one wonder). Adventists would claim that unless instructed categorically otherwise by the Bible, the 2nd Commandment, like the 4th is still applicable and valid.

i. the usual references used by Christians that the Sabbath no longer applies, such as Colossians 2:16, are referring to ceremonial Sabbaths (such as the day of Yon Kippur) and other holy days which are part of the ceremonial law and therefore done away with.

j. In many languages Saturday has a direct translation to Sabbath. For example: The Spanish word for Saturday is sabado, and the Italian word for Saturday is sabato.

k. as believers in Sola Scriptoria (see above), Adventists reject the authority of tradition or any Church forum or counsel to change to Sabbath.

l. in conclusion the Bible affirms the Sabbath as something made for the benefit of mankind and which has always and still apples in the past and future.

2. Traditional ‘Sunday keeping’ is not the clear cut subject many ‘mainstream’ Protestant Christians think it is. Why and how one should keep the Sabbath or Sunday is not, and has not, been so easily defined. For example:

i. some Christians believe the 4th Commandment of the Sabbath as a day of rest was totally done away with at the Cross (many ‘mainstream protestants’);

ii. some Christians believe the 4th Commandment of the Sabbath is still applicable, but merely changed to the 1st day of the week (Sabbatarian Sunday Keepers, puritan protestants, some Catholics);

iii. some Christians believe the 4th Commandment was done away with and replaced with another important day called the ‘Lord’s Day’, but this is not a Sabbath nor the 4th Commandment (many Protestants, some Catholics);

iv. some Christians believe the 7 day Sabbath is still applicable as a special day along side the 1st day of the week (Eastern Orthodox); and

v. it is wrong to consider Adventists ‘cultish’ for keeping a primary Sabbath when such divergent views exist within ‘mainstream’ Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christianity itself.

3. The history of the Christian Church shows a number of things regarding Sabbath Keeping:

a. that the first Christians kept the Sabbath;

b. that the move from Saturday observance to Sunday observance was not an automatic, climatic event, but a gradual process over a few centuries. There was a gradual move from keeping the Sabbath, to keeping both Sabbath and Sunday, and then finally to keeping just Sunday. A move to Sunday keeping was very much motivated by a desire for the Church to distance itself from its Jewish roots, especially during the Jewish-Roman wars; and

c. that there has always been some Christians (if not on the fringes) within Christianity that have always kept the Seventh Day Sabbath. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church being such an example.

In conclusion, Adventists would hold that Sabbath Keeping is not only biblical, but historically contiguous throughout Christianity. Adventist would hold that this belief, like many others, reflects the beliefs and values of the early New Testament Church before power and state sanctioning and sponsoring corrupted its original teachings.

Some points to note on some other Adventist beliefs that are commonly criticised - Ellen White

Many criticisms against Ellen White are fair and reasonable. They are fair and reasonable in that many Adventists themselves have an unrealistic and unbiblical understanding and expectation on who Ellen White was, and what she was meant to achieve. This part of the article will address briefly some of the common criticisms laid at her feet.