Following in the footsteps of my friend and colleague Walter R. Martin, my writings have endeavored to give Seventh-day Adventism a fair hearing in the evangelical ranks. I have long recognized the broad theological diversity present within contemporary Adventism: traditional, evangelical, liberal, cultural, etc. I have also argued that Seventh-day Adventism as a broad church body should not be viewed as a non-Christian cult or heretical sect such as Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormonism. However, I am also painfully aware that there exists a cultic branch of Seventh-day Adventism that seeks to trace its identity to the Adventist pioneers of the nineteenth century. Dale Ratzlaff identifies and confronts this cultic face of Adventism in his interesting and provocative book, The Cultic Doctrine of Seventh-day Adventists. While I am not in complete agreement with Mr. Ratzlaff’s overall assessment of Seventh-day Adventism, I do think that he has provided a penetrating analysis of some of Seventh-day Adventism’s most distinctive early doctrines—and their unfortunate implications in the present-day church.
The Seventh-day Adventist pioneers made some very bold claims. They claimed to be “a special people, with a special message, for a special time!” They claimed to be the “remnant church” that uniquely kept the commandments of God. They also claimed to have special divine guidance through an inspired prophet in their midst—Ellen G. White. Upon closer historical examination, however, we find that the beliefs that coalesced to form primitive Seventh-day Adventism in the wake of the failed Millerite movement were far from biblically orthodox. The beliefs of the primitive Adventist movement included: a non-trinitarian view of God, a seminarian christology, a semi-pelagian gospel, a message of restoration, a strongly legalistic piety, an identity rooted in speculative eschatology (rather than the gospel), and an unsophisticated and unreliable hermeneutic. in point of fact, the primitive Adventist movement was a theologically cultic movement.
Of course this is only the beginning of the Adventist movement. Clearly Seventh-day Adventism has evolved theologically over the years and has corrected many of the early doctrinal errors. In fact, Ellen G. White seemed to play a significant role in helping the Adventist church move toward theological orthodoxy (acceptance of the trinity, an orthodox view of Christ, etc.) However, as Dale Ratzlaff points out in his book, some of the distinctive Adventist beliefs that were originated by its pioneers still plague the contemporary church—especially the traditionalist wing of the church. Doctrines such as the sanctuary and investigative judgment as historically set forth by Seventh-day Adventism have no sound biblical foundation (as many contemporary Adventist scholars have pointed out). These doctrines are tied uniquely to the alleged authoritative writings of Ellen G. White. Without her prophetic imprimatur on these doctrines, as on the early Adventist movement as a whole, they would have no foundation whatsoever.
I agree with Mr. Ratzlaff that the doctrine of the investigative judgment is antithetical to the biblical gospel. It seems to be clearly incompatible with the doctrine of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on the account of Christ alone. The investigative judgment seems to rob Adventists of the assurance of their salvation by wrongly emphasizing a person’s individual works of obedience, rather than properly emphasizing the righteousness of Christ Himself, which has been imputed to the believer and received through faith alone (Rom. 3:23–24). Our standing before God rests completely in the imputed, alien righteousness of Jesus Christ.
I hope that many Seventh-day Adventists will read Dale Ratzlaff’s book and think through the issues he raises. The Seventh-day Adventist pioneers made some bold claims. I hope that the present-day Seventh-day Adventist church will come to grips once and for all with the theological implication of those claims.
Kenneth Richard Samples