Grape Juice & Foot Washing: Adventism’s Sacramental Spin

Well, hey there. Thank you for being here. Glad that you could be with us. An especially warm welcome if this is your first time with us, Adventist or otherwise. It is great to be back with you all and to not be sick anymore. Praise God for the healing of the body and thank God for the gospel. We are going to be breaking the ice tonight on a subject that I happen to love. Speaking of the gospel, which is the eukarist or the Lord’s supper, if you are a Protestant or evangelical, before you have a meltdown, eukarist simply means thanksgiving. And that is

Precisely what the supper is. It is a meal of thanksgiving. Now, if you’ve been with us for any length of time, you have more than likely heard me talk about how one of the biggest pet peeves that I have with the SDA church is they’re seeking to try and claim to be heirs of the Reformation. No, they are not. What we’re going to see this evening is another dead giveaway that this is not the case. As any modern heir of the Reformation will tell you, word and sacrament ministry is central to the lifeblood of the church. And not just any modern uh branch of the reformation

But uh any Christian in history will tell you this. It is one of the central reasons for example that I could never return to the SDA church. So tonight’s focus is not going to be on the disagreement over the mechanics of the supper. There are lots of avenues that we could get into and explore but we need to remain focused. Meaning we are not going to focus tonight on the mode of Christ’s presence. That is a different discussion for a different day. We are instead going to hone in on how the SDA church on this subject is not only in grave error, but it is one

Of the strongest indicators that the SDA church is not crotestant in the true sense of the term and they are not heirs of the reformation. This is a subject that many, many, many former Adventists have written us and asked to get into, but so have many Christians who have never been SDA, whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc. We are going to look at the fundamental Protestant understanding on the subject, and hopefully connect some dots for you along the way, Protestant or otherwise. So, I want to start, there’ll be a little bit of a leadup here. I want to

Start by looking at an article from a professor and church historian R. Scott Clark on this. He wrote this article back in 2016. It is titled divinely instituted sacraments. Notice what he says. Quote, “The two great branches of the Protestant Reformation, the Lutheran and the Reformed, agreed that there are only two divinely instituted sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper. They agreed that both are gospel sacraments, visible representations of the good news that was being preached in Protestant pulpit. That’s the word and the sacrament is the

Eucharist itself. They agreed that both water, baptism, and the Eucharist are both gospel sacraments, visible representations of the good news that was being preached in Protestant pulpit. They agreed that in the gospel, God declares sinners to be righteous by his free favor alone, solagratia, and that salvation is received through faith alone, solid. They agreed that the sacraments are means of grace media by which God strengthens and encourages believers. So notice Protestants recognize two sacraments. The SDA church does not. As we will see momentarily,

Protestants understand the sacraments, which are again baptism and the Eucharist, to be visible signs of the gospel that is preached from the pulpit. You guys have probably heard me talk about word and sacrament. If you’re a former Adventist, you did not hear that at all in the SDA church. That’s what it’s talking about. The word meaning the preaching of God’s word which should always entail the proclamation of the gospel. The bread and the wine are an actual means of grace whereby God actually does something by nourishing you with Christ’s body and blood.

Lutheran and the reformed disagreed on the mode of presence but like I said foundationally they believe the same thing. But continuing Dr. Clark writes, “They agreed that baptism is Christ’s sign and seal of the washing away of sins by grace alone, that it is to be administered to believers and to their children, though they disagreed about its efficacy, and that the supper is his institution for nourishing the faith, excuse me, nourishing the faith of professing believers.” They also agreed that the Roman Catholic doctrine of the memorial propitiatory

Sacrifice of Christ in the supper is an idolatrous assault on the finished work of Christ. Despite their agreement on some of the or yeah despite their agreement on some of the most essential aspects of the sacraments, however, the two great reformation traditions disagreed on a number of things. All right. So another key aspect to the Protestant understanding despite the mechanical differences which is what Dr. Clark is getting at is the belief in the finished work of Christ at Calvary. Not just that Calvary was where the atoning sacrifice took place like the

SDA church teaches. No, the work of dealing with sin being finished at the cross is central because in the supper you are receiving Christ and his benefits. In the SDA system, the investigative judgment is being conducted to see who is and isn’t worthy of them. We’ve looked at this before, but notice Ellen White controversy. quote, “Attended by heavenly angels, our great high priest enters the holy of holies and there appears in the presence of God to engage in the last acts of his ministration in behalf of man to perform the work of investigative judgment and

To make an atonement for all who are shown to be entitled to its benefits.” Close quote. Wholly incompatible with Protestant theology on a number of levels. But in the context of tonight’s discussion, this destroys the supper being a means of grace in the life of the believer as we will see. But Dr. Clark continues, “The recovery of the ancient Christian doctrine and practice of the sacraments was so essential to the reformation that the reformed churches in Europe and the British Isles spoke of the right use of the sacraments as marks of the true

Church.” In article 29 of the Belgic Confession, the French and Dutch-speaking churches confess that there are three marks of a true church. One, the pure preaching of the gospel. Two, the pure administration of the sacraments. And three, use of church discipline. The phrase pure administration of the sacraments was a shorthand way of rejecting both the Anabaptists and Rome. So, catch that. The SDA church does not have the pure preaching of the gospel. They have their special one-of-a-kind end times present truth. Only the SDA church has it gospel,

But they also do not have the pure administration of the sacraments. As Dr. Clark points out, what is meant by that? the rejection of Rome’s teaching on the supper being a propitiatory representation of uh of representation of Christ’s sacrifice as well as the Anabaptist belief that it was only a memorial service. Contrary to popular belief, by the way, just in passing here, uh memorialism was not popularized by Zwingley in uh Zurich. It was popularized by the Anabaptists. Notice what uh Peter Martyr Vermilier says here um in his excellent excellent book. I cannot recommend it

Enough. His uh Oxford treatis and disputation on Eucharist, arguably the foremost reformed work on the subject. And like I said, I cannot recommend it more highly. But notice what he notes about the confusion regarding uh Zwingi. So he says they here he’s speaking about um some of the Lutheran that he was in dialogue with. He says they say that Luther inclined to exaggeration and to language which exceeds the truth because he thought Zwingley and others wished to make the sacraments bare and empty signs whereas Zwingley intended no such thing. But he in turn was afraid that Luther

Might affirm things which detract from the truth of human nature and impante the body of Christ so that a greater superstition would be nourished. Therefore he saw fit to treat this sacrament more lightly. Talking about Zwingley. So a controversy was aroused beyond what was called for causing great harm when actually the disagreement was more about words than reality. Close quote. And that is exactly it. Which is why tonight is not about getting bogged down in mechanical differences, but to highlight how the SDA view is entirely novel, not just mechanically different

From what Christians believe regarding um or regardless of your Christian tradition. The SDA view is superficially closer to the Anabaptist camp, not the Protestant. When the SDA church doesn’t meet these marks that Dr. clerk mentions which is a requirement to be an heir of the reformation not because he said it but that’s just the facts I mentioned earlier they don’t align on uh the number of sacraments and that’s because as we’re going to see they teach footwashing is also one I’ll note they aren’t the first group in history though to think this by the way many people uh

Oftentimes former Adventists um or even well Christians too they hear this and think the SDA church uh is novel in this department they are Not. But notice what the SDA fundamental beliefs book says. Quote, “The ordinances of footwashing and the Lord’s Supper make up the communion service. Thus, Christ instituted both of these ordinances to assist us with entering communion with him.” Close quote. Let’s also look at their church manual on this subject so we can work through some language in this section on the Lord’s supper. Notice what they write. Quote,

“Angels declare that Jesus, the redeemer of this world, is holy. Likewise, the symbols representing his body and his blood are holy. Since the Lord himself selected the deeply meaningful symbols of the unleaven bread and unfermented fruit of the vine and used the simplest of means for washing the disciples feet, there should be great reluctance to introduce alternative symbols and means except under emergency conditions, lest the original significance of the service be lost. Likewise, in the order of service and the traditional roles played by the pastor, elders, deacons,

And deaconesses, there should be caution lest substitution and innovation tend to make common that which is sacred. The service of the Lord’s supper is just as holy today as it was when instituted by Jesus Christ. Jesus is still present when the sacred ordinance is celebrated. It is at these his own appointments that Christ meets his people and energizes them by his presence. Desire of Ages, page 656. Close quote. Now, we will get into the unfermented grape juice once we listen to Ted Wilson, but notice that Ellen White quote that is included. The SDA church claims because Ellen

White said that Jesus is present when the supper is celebrated and Christ does what? Energizes them. So this same thing is said with the same Ellen White quote in the SDA believe fundamental belief book on page 237, but the manual continues on the same page under the heading a memorial of the crucifixion where the entire section is simply an Alen White quote from a few pages later in Desire of Ages. And notice what it says. Quote, “As we receive the bread and wine symbolizing Christ’s broken body and spilled blood, we in imagination join in the scene of communion in the upper

Chamber. We seem to be passing through the garden, consecrated by the agony of him who bore the sins of the world. We witness the struggle by which our reconciliation with God was obtained. Christ is set forth crucified among us.” Desire of Ages, page 661. Close quote. So, it’s a memorial of the crucifixion where one imagines the scene of the upper room, then the garden of Gethsemane, and you’re taken through Christ’s life essentially in your imagination, and you witness the struggle that it took to obtain reconciliation on Christ’s part. Standard sort of language one would use

That holds to a bare symbolism view. This is not what Christians believe regarding Christ being present in the Lord’s Supper. We mean he’s actually present. We receive him. Not that we imagine the upper room and think about that and the investigative judgment while we eat bread and drink grape juice after washing each other’s feet. I mean, we don’t have to imagine because he’s actually present there. It’s like we are in the upper room. He’s there. I don’t have to imagine. We’ve looked at it before, but the SDA church teaches that Jesus gave up his

Omnipresence in the incarnation and that with a body, he can’t possibly be omnipresent. So, he has chosen to limit himself in that capacity and be present through the Holy Spirit. The SDA church’s website says this, fundamental belief book says this, Ellen White, and on and on and on. So, don’t be confused when their church manual says he’s present. If you go and read further in that same page of the desire of ages, you’ll also get a better glimpse into what she means by Jesus’s presence energizes you. Notice quote, “Looking upon the crucified redeemer, we

More fully comprehend the magnitude and meaning of the sacrifice made by the majesty of heaven. The plan of salvation is glorified before us, and the thought of Calvary awakens living and sacred emotions in our hearts. Praise to God and the lamb will be in our hearts and on our lips. For pride and self- worship cannot flourish in the soul that keeps fresh in memory the scenes of Calvary. He who beholds the Savior’s matchless love will be elevated in thought, purified in heart, transformed in character. He will go forth to be a light to the world to reflect in some degree this

Mysterious love. The more we contemplate the cross of Christ, the more fully shall we adopt the language of the apostle when he said, “God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me and I unto the world.” Galatians 6:14. Close quote. All the Christianes, if you’ve been following along for any extended period of time, you will know what she means by the term the plan of salvation. In the great controversy, Lucifer supposedly began attacking the Ten Commandments in heaven before the

Creation of the earth. War breaks out. He’s kicked from heaven. The father and the son then decide to create earth with humanity on it as a probationary test to see if they will vindicate God against these accusations from Satan. That the ten commandments aren’t fair and can’t be kept. This is because all of the universe is supposedly involved in this cosmic conflict and they are on looking to see if God is who he says he is because Satan swed seeds of doubt. That’s why Adam and Eve along with the earth was created as a test in the great controversy to vindicate God. But they

Failed and fell which is why all of heaven was filled with sorrow. Ellen White says but then Jesus presented a plan to the father in a special council meeting and that plan was the plan of salvation. And what was that? That Jesus would come demonstrate that Satan is a liar. The law can be kept and he would do so and pay the penalty for sin which was death. The cross then silenced Satan’s accusations and vindicated God and the law before the watching universe and all the intelligences, not just humans, all these other created beings on these other worlds that are supposedly keeping

The ten commandments. And he demonstrated Jesus that you with his help can keep the law also side with him in the great controversy and vindicate God, which SDA scholarship says is the ultimate goal of the Adventist gospel. God vindicating himself from Satan’s accusations. I should say the Adventist God. So when she says that the supper in Adventism is a memorial, you have to remember that they are memorial or what they are memorializing at Calvary. It is not the perfected and completed work of redemption by Jesus Christ on behalf of sinners where the redemption

Of all things was accomplished. It is only where the atoning sacrifice took place and that atoning sacrifice was a demonstration about silencing Satan that the law can be changed and that you and that it could be kept by you etc. We’ve looked at this before, but notice review and Herald, Ellen White, May 28, 1901. Quote, “God will test all, even as he tested Adam and Eve to see whether they will be obedient. Our loyalty or disloyalty will decide our destiny.” Since the fall of Adam, men in every age have excused themselves for sinning, charging God with their

Sin, saying that they could not keep his commandments. This is the insinuation Satan cast at God in heaven. But the plea, I cannot keep the commandments, need never be presented to God. For before him stands the Savior, the marks of the crucifixion upon his body, a living witness that the law can be kept. It is not that men cannot keep the law, but that they will not. Close quote. That’s what the cross is about in Adventism. Exalting the law. God supposedly silencing Satan. These accusations from before the earth was created. And the cross is for you to

See that you can keep the law with Jesus’s help. That’s even what Jesus’s scars of the crucifixion are supposed to point you to. Oh, wow. I can keep the law. Not just try your best. Keep it perfectly. Don’t let the SDA church fool you folks. same paper. Quote, “And Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.” Genesis 5:24. It is only a short journey to the heavenly hills, brethren, if we walk with God. In John 15:10, Jesus tells us he kept his father’s commandments. He did not say, “I am trying to keep them.” But he says, “I have kept them.” So it

Is not enough that we try to keep the commandments. We must keep them. The character of the saints is not established by their failures to keep the commands of God, but by their success in doing so. Those who simply try to keep the commandments are moral cripples. They do not walk with God. They simply hobble along after him. Close quote. Is that clear? Two years before Ellen’s statement in the same paper before modernday neoadventism was on the scene. And you have SDAs that try and downplay this claim, “No, no, the SDA church, they don’t teach that. You’re a

Liar. You don’t know what we believe. Oh, you’re just a bcker and a scoffer.” Yeah. Okay. No, you just don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. If you aren’t keeping the law perfectly, you’re a moral and don’t actually follow God. And this is central to the entire system of SDA theology. Keeping the law perfectly to silence Satan and demonstrate that you’re safe to save and can be trusted in heaven, which ultimately vindicates God. That’s why I’m constantly talking about this. SDAs just want to talk about all this Christian language and never get into

These specifics about what they actually mean. They’ll point to your the fundamental beliefs book like we’re going to see more of tonight and be like, “Look, look, it says the same thing you’re saying.” Yeah. No, it doesn’t mean the same thing. Words mean what they mean in in a context, which is why we go deep over here. But when she says Jesus being present energizes you, she went on to say in Desire of Ages that you meditate on this why Jesus came and died, the Adventist plan of salvation. And when you do so, it purifies your heart and transforms

Your character. You’ll then go out into the world better reflecting the character of God, aka keeping the law, which vindicates God in the great controversy by being a light in the world that shows that God’s law can be kept. That’s the Adventist duty in the great controversy system. Side with Jesus and exalt the law with him, showing that the law can be kept, Satan’s a liar, etc. So, the Lord’s supper in Adventism is like it’s like halftime for Jesus’s team in the great controversy to fuel up the tank and and get back out there and keep trying to trounce Satan and his angels

Who on the scoreboard are totally destroying the Adventist Jesus’s team, which is less than 1% of the global population. But that’s the backdrop behind the Adventist idea of the supper. That’s what’s being memorialized. Remember the cross in Adventism is only where the penalty for sin was paid. Death. It isn’t where atonement took place in the sense that Christians believe. I don’t care what your tradition is. It’s completely novel. Atonement in Adventist theology means investigative judgment which allegedly began in 1844. Notice we’ve looked at this before.

Salvation contours of adventiology. This is basically just the modern version of Beach’s dimensions of salvation which was uh the 60s I believe but this is the new thing that their scholars are just this book supposedly does no it’s just a rehash of all the same stuff in modern Christianes but at least you get honest statements like this quote one of the most debated topics of Christian theology is expressed in these questions why the cross. What really happened at the cross? The answers to these questions have been widely debated under the general heading

Of the atonement. But when 7th Day Adventists approach the matter of atonement, an immediate dilemma is perceived. When Adventists talk about atonement, they refer specifically to what Jesus is doing now in the heavenly sanctuary. On the other hand, when scholars outside the Seventh Day Adventist Church discuss the atonement, they refer specifically to the cross of Jesus Christ and what God was doing there. Close quote. And that is exactly correct, which is why Ellen White also said this. Review and Herald May 31st, 1898. quote, “All who keep before them in the act of

Feet washing the humiliation of Christ, all who will keep their hearts humble and keep in view the true tabernacle and service which the Lord pitched and not man will never fail to derive benefit from every discourse given and spiritual strength from every communion.” These ordinances are established for a purpose. Christ followers are to bear in mind the example of Christ in his humility. This ordinances uh this ordinance is to encourage humility, but it should never be termed humiliating in the sense of being degrading to humanity. It is to make tender our

Hearts toward one another. Close quote. All who will keep their hearts humble and keep in view what? the true tabernacle and service, aka the SDA sanctuary, teaching and investigative judgment. And that’s why because that’s what the SDA church means by the term atonement. And the sanctuary and investigative judgment are intimately tied to the SDA teaching and view of the law. On top of all of that, yes, there’s more. The SDA church teaches a three-fold understanding of atonement which corresponds with their three-fold understanding of judgment.

So it gets even more complex beyond just the investigative judgment. That is only judgment phase one. The second phase is what they call the millennial judgment, which they teach will take place for a thousand years in heaven, where Adventists are basically getting to fact check God and his work in the investigative judgment to see if uh that they can really trust him, you know, because they’ll say, “Well, if I get there and my dad’s not there, I’m going to wonder why.” So God’s going to show why, and he’s going to show his work, and I’m going to be able to see,

Okay, God is fair and why my dad’s not here. And the third phase is the postmillennial judgment, the executive judgment they’ll sometimes call it, which means the scapegoat who they teach is Satan is a part of their atonement model. Notice what the fundamental beliefs book says regarding this quote. The scapegoat ritual on the day of atonement pointed beyond Calvary to the final end of the sin problem, the banishment of sin and Satan. Now they quote Ellen White, “The full accountability for sin will be rolled back upon Satan, the originator and instigator. Satan and his followers

And all the effects of sin will be banished from the universe by destruction. Atonement by judgment will therefore bring about a fully reconciled and harmonious universe. Ephesians 1:10. This is the objective that the second and final phase of Christ’s priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary will accomplish. This judgment will see God’s final vindication before the universe. Close quote. So, Satan carrying away sin will be what brings about a full reconciliation and harmonious universe. They had the gall to cite Ephesians 1:10, which has absolutely zero to do with the devil and

Jesus both accomplishing this work. And they always insert that the scapegoat bore responsibility and that’s supposed to be the big link to the scapegoat being Satan. Even though Leviticus 16 never says this, it is whole cloth Ellen White. I challenge any Adventist in the world to show us where Leviticus 16 says or teaches that the scapegoat’s function and purpose was bearing responsibility for sin. I’ll give you a hint. You will not find it because that wasn’t its function. We will actually be looking at that more in depth next week. But all of this,

Folks, all of this is wrapped up in the word atonement as well. When Adventists use that term, it is a loaded term. And you have to understand this. All of this is in the wagon and hitched to the SDA cart. That’s what the SDA church is memorializing in their ritual that they call the Lord’s Supper. It’s not what Christians are. The the Eucharist is not about pointing people to three phases of judgment, lawkeeping to silence Satan, Satan bearing responsibility for sin, and the great controversy worldview. No, the the Eucharist is about receiving

Jesus and his benefits. Even those who don’t affirm a real presence view, I don’t agree with that, but a strictly memorialist view, they aren’t memorializing the great controversy narrative. So the SDA church can use all the same language that Christians do, but when you actually do a systematic examination, it is a totally novel teaching that’s entirely informed by the great controversy worldview, like everything else in their theology. Now, let’s listen to Ted Wilson present it, though, and how it’s packaged to appear like just basic modern evangelicalism

View, but they forgot footwashing. You see, the Seventh Day Adventist Church sees the Lord’s Supper as so vital that it has been included in one of our biblically based fundamental beliefs as belief number 16, which reads as follows. The Lord’s Supper is a participation in the emblems of the body and blood of Jesus as an expression of faith in him, our Lord and Savior. In this experience of communion, Christ is present to meet and strengthen his people. As we partake, we joyfully proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes again. Preparation for the supper

Includes self-examination, repentance, and confession. The master ordained the service of footwashing to signify renewed cleansing, to express a willingness to serve one another in Christlike humility and to unite our hearts in love. The communion service is open to all believing Christians. You see, the Lord’s Supper, celebrated today as a communion service, is an opportunity for believers to honor the gift of God in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. In doing this, the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:26, in the last part, you proclaim the

Lord’s death till he comes. The Lord’s Supper follows the words of Jesus during the last supper he ate before his crucifixion. He and his disciples came together to celebrate the Passover meal in remembrance of Israel’s deliverance from slavery in Egypt. This time, however, as they parttook of the unleavened bread and fruit of the vine, the unfermented grape juice, Jesus gave new meaning to these items. Yeah, it’s so vital that they only practice it about four times a year. But Ted gave us a good example of how Adventists will often use words like

Biblical and Bible- based as adjectives. the Bible Sabbath, Bible creation, biblically based beliefs, etc. But this always means great controversy infused concepts that we have proof texts that we can point to that the prophetist gave commentary on and said, “This is what it means.” So that’s what it means. And I want us to look at an example of this found in the fundamental belief book. So we heard it in passing there from Ted, but check this out. Under the heading ordinance of footwashing and the subheading of the meaning of the ordinance, they give a

Few claims. This is one. Quote, the ordinance of footwashing memorializes Christ’s humiliation in his incarnation and life of service. Then it has a footnote there. You’ll see footnote number two. Although he held a position with the father amid celestial glory, he made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant and coming in the likeness of men. Philippians 2:7. Close quote. So, we’re not going to diverge tonight into Philippians 2 and their Kosis heresy affirmation. We’ve looked at that I don’t know how many times. But notice the first sentence has a

Footnote. This is the source for the claim that footwashing is a memorial of Christ’s humiliation and incarnation.

Quote, now having washed the disciples feet, he said, I’ve given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you. In these words, Christ was not merely enjoining the practice of hospitality. More was meant than the washing of the feet of guests to remove the dust of travel. Christ was here instituting a religious service. By the act of our Lord, this humiliating ceremony was made a consecrated ordinance. It was to be observed by the disciples that they might ever keep in mind his lessons of humility and service. This ordinance, this ordinance is Christ’s

Appointed preparation for the sacramental service. While pride, variance, and strife for supremacy are cherished, the heart cannot enter into fellowship with God. We are not prepared to receive the communion of his body and his blood. Therefore, it was that Jesus appointed the memorial of his humiliation to be observed. Desire of Ages page 650. Close quote. So notice she cites the typical passage of John 13:14 where Jesus washes the disciples feet and says to them, “If I as your teacher wash your feet, so you should also wash one anothers.” She

Takes this to mean that this was Jesus giving this as a sacrament. And it memorializes Jesus’s humiliation in the incarnation. We will get to John 13 later, but this is the citation they give for this claim. Nowhere in John 13 or Philippians 2 does it say footwashing is a memorial of the incarnation. I’m not saying it needs to be verbatim stated. No, it’s wholly not present in any capacity. No, no, no. We only believe the Bible. Ellen White only comments on stuff that’s already there. Even when she adds details like this that aren’t there, it’s not an addition to the Bible. Yeah.

Cognitive dissonance, buddy. But because Ellen White said it and proof texted a passage, that has to be what it means. So it must be there. See, she doesn’t contradict the Bible. She just illuminates what’s already there, giving you extra details not found in the Bible. Christian, understand that’s what they mean when they say, “We only believe the Bible.” No. No. What they mean is they go to the Bible with this preconceived worldview that comes packaged with Ellen White. It’s a package deal. They bring that to the Bible and think that they have an

Understanding of any given passage in the Bible because she commented on any given passage in the Bible. And then because they believe her interpretation, we only believe the Bible. Yeah. show us in the Bible the proof text that they used that footwashing was given as a memorial of the incarnation. That’s what Ted means by Bible- based. It’s just like in film. You know, some films are based on a true story, which isn’t a strict representation of the story exactly how it was, but the plotline is based on like a real historical event, and all sorts of things not actually identical

To the actual story are added to spice it up for film. They don’t necessarily contradict the story line, but they aren’t actually found in the real story line. That’s what based on the Bible actually means in Adventism because none of the texts that they provided say footwashing again is a memorial of the incarnation. Not saying it’s not an act of humility, right? Well, let’s let Ted flesh this out a little bit more before I get ahead of myself. And even before they ate together, Jesus demonstrated his love for his disciples and us by performing a

Servant’s job. He washed his disciples feet. By doing this, he showed an example of kindness and unconditional love. The three significant parts of a 7th day Adventist communion service involves eating unleavened bread, drinking pure grape juice, and washing one another’s feet. All these things are symbolic of Christ’s sacrifice to save us. and the humble servantlike example that he set. These actions follow Jesus’s words to his disciples. Do this in remembrance of me. The bread represents Christ’s body broken for us. In Matthew 26 26 we read, “And as they were eating, Jesus took

Bread, blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat. This is my body.” Jesus was standing before his disciples. As he said this, communicating that this was to be a symbol of remembrance of what he was about to do. I am the bread of life, Jesus said. He went on to explain, I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I shall give is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world. In giving his body for the world, Jesus made a way for us to be saved from the

Eternal consequences of sin. By believing in and accepting Jesus death and resurrection, Jesus, the true bread of heaven, satisfies the deepest longings of our hearts. This true bread, symbolizes a spiritual nourishment to completely satisfy the soul hunger. Accepting Jesus Christ, the bread of life, will fill our hearts with meaning and love and gives us eternal life. Do this in remembrance of me was not said of footwashing. This is them tying the fact that Jesus did this before the supper to the supper itself as something that was given as an

Ordinance. which is why I’m glad he said that an Adventist communion service consists of what he laid out. But with regards to the Adventist communion, Ted, notice what your prophetist claimed she saw in vision regarding it from early writings, page 116. Quote, duties are laid down in God’s word, the performance of which will keep the people of God humble and separate from the world and from backsliding like the nominal churches. The washing of feet and partaking of the Lord’s supper should be more frequently practiced. Jesus set us the example and he told us

To do as he had done. I saw that his example should be as exactly followed as possible. Yet brethren and sisters have not always moved as judiciously as they should in washing feet. and confusion has been caused. It should be introduced into new places with carefulness and wisdom, especially where the people are not informed relative to the example and teachings of our Lord on this point and where they have prejudice against it. Many honest souls through the influence of former teachers in whom they had confidence are much prejudiced against this plain duty

And the subject should be introduced to them in a proper time and manner. Close quote. So Ellen allegedly saw in vision that this ceremony within Adventism is supposed to be followed as exact as possible to Jesus’s example, both footwashing and the supper. How exact, Mr. Wilson? Because notice what else she claimed to see in this vision documented on the next page in the same book. Quote, there is no example given in the word for brethren to wash feet. But there is an example for sisters to wash the feet of brethren. Mary washed the feet of Jesus with her

Tears and wiped them with her hair or the hair of her head. See also 1 Timothy 5:10. I saw that the Lord had moved upon sisters to wash the feet of brethren and that it was according to gospel order. All should move understandingly and not make the washing of feet a tedious ceremony. Close quote. Which is fascinating considering we don’t have an example of a woman taking communion in scripture. So, I guess it should only be for men, right? Now, look at what the white estate added to the appendex of this statement from Ellen. So, with the heading of the Lord’s

Supper, women washing men’s feet, and the holy kiss, they add this in the appendix to what we just read. Quote, “The pioneers of the Seventh Adventist Church, having accepted the Sabbath truth, eagerly reached out to follow the word of God in every particular, while at the same time they were careful to protect themselves against distorted interpretations of the word and any extremes or fanaticism. They saw clearly the privileges and obligations of the Lord’s supper established for the church by our Lord.” There was some question about footwashing

And the holy kiss. In this vision, the Lord made clear certain delicate points that would guide and guard the emerging church aka the Adventists.

Sorry. As to the matter the frequency with which the ordinance should be observed, some insisted on once a year, but the instruction was given that the Lord’s supper should be more frequently practiced. Today, the church follows the plan of observing the ordinance four times annually. Council was given concerning the washing of feet. Apparently, there were some differences of opinion as to the procedure to be followed. Some had moved injudiciously, and the result had been confusion. Council was given that this ordinance should be performed with care and

Reserve in such a way as not to arouse prejudice. There was some question about the propriety of men and women washing one another’s feet. On this point, Ellen White brought forth scripture evidence which indicated that it would be proper for a woman, apparently under certain conditions, to wash the feet of a man, but she counseledled against a man washing the feet of a woman. Close quote. So God apparently showed Ellen White that men are not to wash a woman’s feet, but the women can wash the men’s. because well she was able to point to an example of a woman that washed Jesus’s

Feet. So that means it’s biblical since there’s an example of he apparently showed her that this service was to be done exact as possible to Jesus’s example. The wide estate claims the early adventists were just trying their best to be as biblical as possible and then God gave this vision to clarif clarify some things and squash some of the confusion that that rose. Then once again the Lord’s supper is only for men. Let’s hear that verse Adventist where a woman took communion. Jesus used a single chalice cup not a bunch of separate little plastic cups.

Jesus used real wine as we’re going to see in a moment because yes, this is one of those areas that is very clear both grammatically and by surveying all of scripture on the subject as well as history. And that’s supposed to be one of William Miller’s rules of Bible interpretation that the SDA church claims to affirm. Survey all of scripture on the subject before coming to the conclusion. But before looking at that, notice what else the white estate noted about the early adventists and footwashing. the holy kiss. Ah, right. The other ordinance that they claimed was lost due

To the work of antichrist and needed restored along with footwashing. The two were tied. Which is why the white estate seeking to paint this in the most favorable light as possible like they always do talked about the confusion that was taking place. Yeah. That included frisky behavior. Something we’ve looked at before. people not just washing each other’s feet, kissing each other’s feet. Yeah. On that same page of early writings, in the same vision, next paragraph, right after her claim that men aren’t to wash women’s feet, quote, “The holy salutation mentioned in

The Gospel of Jesus Christ by the Apostle Paul should ever be considered in its true character. It is a holy kiss. It should be regarded as a sign of fellowship to Christian friends when parting and when meeting again after a separation of weeks or months. In 1 Thessalonians 5:26, Paul says, “Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss.” In the same chapter, he says, “Abstain from all appearance of evil. There can be no appearance of evil when the holy kiss is given at a proper time and place.” Close quote. Now, if you’ve seen the video that we’ve

Done on this, this is being said because the behavior of these little flock Millerites at the time was getting frisky. Like I said, people not just washing each other’s feet, kissing each other’s feet, all sorts of craziness. Newspapers of of the time writing about these crazed end times fanatics that are enga it was bleeding out into the city. This is some of the confusion that the white estate alludes to but doesn’t directly say but that’s why she’s saying it needs to not be this you know promiscuous kind of behavior. Paul says we need to abstain from all uh you know

Appearances of evil. But in connection with this you might also recall her word to the little flock vision which also mentioned both footwashing and the holy kiss. This vision is documented in the same book early writings. This is towards the beginning on page 15. Notice, quote, “The 144,000 were all sealed and perfectly united. On their foreheads was written, God new Jerusalem and a glorious star containing Jesus’s new name. At our happy, holy state, the wicked were enraged and would rush violently to lay hands on us to thrust us into prison. when we

Would stretch forth the hand in the name of of the Lord and they would fall hapless to the ground. Then it was that the synagogue of Satan knew that God had loved us who could wash one another’s feet and salute the brethren with a holy kiss and they the wicked worshiped at our feet. Close quote. So, a little bit of backstory. She was supposedly shown in vision that the little flock of Millerites that refused to accept that they were wrong in 1844 were on a path way up above the world on their way to heaven. This was in a vision. Jesus was supposedly at the end of the

Path shedding light on them, illuminating the path for them. Those that rejected 1844 as being a false alarm supposedly fell off the path into the wicked world that God had rejected and there was no possibility of them getting back on the path. If you want to see that, you got to go to the word to the little flock, not early writings, because they’ve tried to do a scrub job and removed 30 some odd words, which includes that part that they fell off into the wicked world that God had rejected. She claims that those who could hear Jesus’s words like streams of water were

Given the day and the hour of Jesus’s return. And it was those individuals who were the 144,000 of Revelation using personal pronouns all throughout. And you can reference the Present Truth magazine at the time, James White, all these people talking about the time of trouble was coming. She was saying the ceiling time was going on. They clearly believed they were the 144,000. This only changed later on. But after that, she gets to what we just read. She saw that they were going to be sealed by God. And this enraged the wicked, leading to them violently coming up

Against them to throw them into prison. But they would stretch forth their hand in the name of the Lord, and the wicked would fall helpless to the ground. Upon doing so, they knew that God loved the little flock who what could wash one another’s feet and salute each other with the holy kiss which led to the wicked worshiping at their feet. The synagogue of Satan. The holy kiss was not a small thing early on. It was a part of the visions from God and something they play uh that played a part in the little flock being recognized as God’s true people.

I mentioned earlier that the SDA church would go on to say that it was the work of antichrist that this wasn’t happen happening normatively speaking amongst Christians. Quote, Dr. For William twice in his morality of the fourth commandment speaks of this ordinance among others showing how it was used in the primitive church. His testimony will be of interest to the readers of the review. Special attention is due the remark that as the work of Antichrist is more fully discovered, the ordinances which his wicked hands have obscured and defaced will be

Restored more and more nearly to their ancient luster. The work of the man of sin is now seen in its enormity as never before. And the work of rescuing Bible institutions and practices from the foul heap of romish superstitions is very fully developed. Close quote. That is the review and herald July 4th 1871. So this is after the SDA church is incorporated as an organization in 1863. They mention English Puritan William Twice’s book, The Morality of the Fourth Commandment, a book that I have, and how Twice believed the holy kiss was practiced by the early church. They then

Say that the readers of the Review and Herald will find his testimony to be of special interest because why? He lays out that the antichrist has observe or obscured the holy kiss and it was needing to be restored. Why would the readers of the review and Herald be especially interested in William Twice’s comments on the holy kiss? Because they were the ones practicing this all along or rather however long with footwashing. Which means this is a classic case of the SDA church citing an individual that they think supports their view on something to bolster their teaching.

This has been going on for a long time. They still do this today because they try to make it sound like William Twice believed like the SDAs did and then cite him to try and bolster this. That’s why they’re citing him. Like the fact that they’ll even cite the Twice is the morality of the fourth commandment. Folks, go on to answering adventism.com and type in twice in the the search bar tws. An article will pop up where I cite from this book. Go read Twice’s comment on the Sabbath. See if it supports the SDA view. It’s like, even though William Twice is

Arguing against the seventh day Sabbath in the book in favor of the Christian Sabbath, the first day. No, no, no. Never mind that. He said something that sounds like it helped out what what was going on in the Adventist world. So, they’re going to cite him. Adventist, this organization relies on you never actually hearing what other people believe from the sources themselves. Like we’ll hear constantly, “He doesn’t know what we teach. He doesn’t know what we believe.” Yeah, except I’m just constantly citing from your own primary sources and you never even bother to

Engage with those. You just attack me personally. Okay. But then they’ll site people like this and then SDAs will start paring it. Like at that time, I wonder if you know, they didn’t have social media at the time, but this was how people consumed this sort of information was through these publications. I’m sure it went on around then as well when they would argue with people. Well, William Twice has a book called The Morality of the Fourth Commandment. Yeah, except he wasn’t a Seventh Day Sabotarian, so what’s your point? Oh, right. It’s just one of those

Superficial appeals that makes it look like your position is vindicated, even though he’s arguing literally against your position in the book. As an aside, like I said, I have this book by Twice. I couldn’t even find the quote that they cited from what they said was page 60. Either way, clearly they believed he said this and they agreed with him. The holy kiss was an ordinance that fell away due to the antichrist. Fast forward almost a hundred years to 1957 and the youth’s instructor which is an official publication of the SDA church and notice what they say as an

Answer to somebody asking why the holy kiss isn’t practiced July 6 or or 16 1957 quote in response to that question there is no evidence in these injunctions that they were to have universal application to the church till the end of time. They were based on local custom and though the principle of brotherly love and affection still applies, the custom has long since fallen into disuse. Close quote. So Ellen saw in vision that the 144,000 were practicing footwashing in the holy kiss. The Review and Herald claims that the holy kiss falling away was the work

Of Antichrist and it needed to be restored. But now they claim it was simply a local custom that has fallen into disuse. There’s no evidence, no evidence that it was to have universal application. So my question for Ted Wilson is why have you guys shelved this part of Ellen’s vision? It’s supposedly tied to the 144,000 which you guys now teach is those who are alive whenever Christ returns. Ellen said that the wicked come up against you all and will fall down at your feet. Whoever that group is when Jesus returns because again they thought it was them but it didn’t happen. The

Wicked will fall down at their feet and worship because they knew God loves you guys who wash one another’s feet and greet each other with the holy kiss. Footwashing is in the same boat, folks. John 13:15 is not Jesus giving footwashing to the church as a normative ordinance to be practiced in conjunction with communion. Now, it’s fine if they want to do that. I think there’s, like I said earlier, there’s a great principle in the humbling act of footwashing, but that doesn’t make it an ordinance. That’s the problem. This was Jesus utilizing a cultural

Custom to point to a greater reality, something he did often. But that doesn’t make it a sacrament. Notice what Albert Barnes says in his commentary on John where he gives a number of reasons. These aren’t unique to him, by the way. Adventists often point out, “You you always are citing other people, not understanding why I’m citing other people. If I didn’t cite other people, they would say that’s just you. That’s just your opinion.” And then when I do site qualified sources on specific matters, it’s, “Oh, well, you just believe that because they’re saying it.”

So, no, we cite a lot of sources on here because I like to show people I’m not just talking out the side of my neck. I’m not just the one saying this. But in this case, Barnes gives four of the exact reasons again that are not unique to him on the phrase ye also ought to wash. Not notice what he says. Some have understood this literally as instituting a religious right which we ought to observe, but this was evidently not the design because one, there’s no evidence that Jesus intended it as a religious observance like the Lord’s supper or the ordinance of baptism. Two, it was not

Observed by the apostles or the primitive Christians as a religious right. Three, it was a right of hospitality among the Jews, a common well-known thing and performed by servants. Ah, it’s just like the holy kiss. It was a custom of the day. And then four, it is the manifest design of Jesus here to inculcate a lesson of humility to teach them by his example that they ought to condescend to the most humble offices for the benefit of others. They ought not to be proud and vain and unwilling to occupy a low place, but to regard themselves as the servants of each other and as willing to

Befriend each other in every way. and especially as they were to be uh founders of the church and to be greatly honored. He took this occasion of warning them against the dangers of ambition and of teaching them by an example that they could not forget the duty of humility. Close quote. So when discussing the supper, for example, in 1 Corinthians, Paul nowhere mentions anything about footwashing being tied to it or anything about it being done as a sacrament to prepare for the supper. There’s zero mention of it ever being practiced as a religious

Right. It was a known cultural custom. Again, putting it in the same category as the holy kiss, which Paul also says in a sort of commanding way. Greet one another with a holy kiss. These were cultural things that the early church or that the early SDAs latched on to and then Ellen supposedly received vision on it to confirm them though they’ve been selective now obviously by leaving behind one of them but practicing the other. The bread served during the communion service is unleavened and there is an interesting reason for that. During the Passover, God instructed the Israelites

To be ready to leave as soon as Pharaoh gave his consent. So, they baked unleavened cakes of dough. Through the years, as the Israelites celebrated the Passover, they used unleavened bread as a reminder of their hasty exodus from Egypt. The Apostle Paul added additional meaning to eating unleavened bread at times of remembrance when he wrote to the Corinthian church. Do you not know that a little levan leavenvens the whole lump? Therefore, purge out the old leaven that you may be a new lump since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ our Passover was sacrificed for

Us. Therefore, he continued, let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leavenven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. But with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. The fruit of the vine symbolizes Jesus’s blood that was shed for us. This is my blood of the new covenant, said Jesus, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. And in Hebrews 9:22, we read, “Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins.” Seventh Day Adventists believe the fruit of the vine used in the Passover

Celebration was unfermented grape juice, pure grape juice. After partaking of the cup, Jesus said, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my father’s kingdom.” When we consider the ways fermented wine is condemned in scripture, Seventh Day Adventists seek to commemorate Christ’s sacrifice for us with a clear, unclouded mind. Wine is a mocker. Strong drink is a brawler. And whoever is led astray by it is not wise. We read in Proverbs 20 and verse one. In Proverbs 23:es 31 and 32, we read, “Do not look on the

Wine when it is red. When it sparkles in the cup, when it swirls around smoothly, at the last it bites like a serpent and stings like a viper.” Only pure grape juice, freshly squeezed from the vine, is a fitting symbol of the perfect blood of Christ shed for the redemption of mankind. Ted, the SDA church’s freshlysqueezed welches isn’t freshly squeezed from the vine. It is largely manufactured in a processing plant that utilizes modern industrial practices to preserve it and remove the yeast that naturally develop uh on the skin of the grape. But he

Started by saying and ending by reiterating that without the shedding of blood, there’s no forgiveness of sins. Christians, anytime that you hear this brought up from SDAs, it should just totally flabbergast you because it poses serious problems for the system. Jesus shed his blood 2,000 years ago. Yet the SDA church teaches that was only when the atoning sacrifice took place. As Ellen said, no sins were canceled at the cross. This is what the SDA pioneers were consistently teaching. And she then gave God’s stamp of approval on it. Looked at this I don’t know how many

Times I have it memorized at this point. Patriarchs and Prophets, page 357. Quote, “The blood of Christ, while it was to release the repentant sinner from the condemnation of the law, was not to cancel the sin. It would stand on record in the sanctuary until the final atonement. So in the type, the blood of the sin offering removed the sin from the penitent, but it rested in the sanctuary until the day of atonement. Close quote. No, that last part is wrong. We’ve looked at that I don’t know how many times. No, the sins of the penitant were not transferred in the daily

Administration, which he gets into in three pages before this. In the type, the sins of the penitant, they brought their sacrifice and confessed their sins and laid their hands on it, which in type transferred their sin to the animal. And then the animal was sacrificed. And then the blood of that animal was taken into the holy place where the sin was then transferred in there and it was sprinkled before the veil to rest until the day of atonement where when the sanctuary was cleansed, it was dealt with. No. Read Leviticus 4. still waiting on any Adventist in the world

That can prove to us that the daily ministration of the priests involved the taking of blood from penitent individual Israelites into the tabernacle daily to be sprinkled before the veil. No, they were only taken in on two occasions. When the priest sinned, I should say the blood, not they. There’s no concept of transference. They have this whole theory of transferring sin around and that blood is a a vehicle for that. But it’s only on two occasions that blood was taken into the sanctuary. When the priest sinned and when the congregation of the Israelite community

As a whole sinned unintentionally. That destroys this whole type that they have. But on top of that, in their system, the work of cancelling and dealing with sin began taking place in 1844 in a building in heaven. Yet Jesus isn’t shedding his blood there. He only did this at the cross. So the atonement in Adventism is an event that doesn’t involve the shedding of blood.

Conundrum. The cross was only the atoning sacrifice. It’s not where atonement took place. Because the atonement in Adventism, as we saw earlier, refers to the investigative judgment. Notice that Ted cited Matthew 26:28 before citing Hebrews 9. This is uh my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many for what? The remission of sins. So, how does that jive with all of those that partake of the supper prior to 1844? Remission, folks, means cancellation. Ellen says no sin was canceled at at Calvary. So Jesus apparently shed his blood at Calvary. No sins were remitted,

But transferred to heaven to stand on record and begin being dealt with and canceled in 1844, where he’s working with his blood in heaven to cancel sins, even though scripture says he only shed his blood one time. Just a hodgepodge of a system. Christians have always taught because the Bible teaches that one receives Christ and his benefits in the Eucharist. That benefit being what we just heard from Jesus, the remission of sins. But apparently, everyone before 1844 couldn’t say this because, well, their sins weren’t remitted and still technically aren’t until they’re

Transferred to Satan, who will bear them away and be annihilated. That’s what will ultimately cancel sin in their model. Notice what Thomas Watson says in his little book, The Lord’s Supper. He has a great quote on this quote. So, he goes through a number of things that are observable about the the Lord’s Supper. Quote, the fifth thing observable in the text Matthew 26:26-8 is the benefit of this supper in these words for the remission of sins. This is a mercy of the first magnitude, the sum genius, the crowning blessing. who forgiveth all thine iniquities, who

Crowneth thee with loving kindness. Psalm 103 3-4. Whoever has this charter granted is enrolled in the book of life. Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven. Psalm 32:1. under the words remission of sins by a synotic are comprehended all heavenly benedictions justification adoption glory in respect of which benefits we may with John chroastm call the Lord’s supper the feast of the cross close quote for the remission of sins is the exact benefit of Christ that one has visibly signed and sealed to them when taking the Eucharist. But the SDA church cannot teach this.

Like we saw in the introduction, Ellen White claimed that the investigative judgment is for Christ to look over the books and see who is and isn’t worthy of receiving him and his benefits. Which leads us to yet another major blunder in this system. We heard Ted make the classic claim that unfermented grape juice is what was used by Jesus. And this unfermented grape juice is supposed to be symbolic of untainted blood like Jesus’s. Another claim from Ellen White because scripture nowhere equates fermentation with pollution. Their model of atonement, folks, again

This is another blunder with what he just claimed and this whole model. Their model of atonement says that Jesus’s blood transfers the sins of a penitent individual into the sanctuary building in heaven where he can then deal with them in the investigative judgment. We’ve looked at this claim numerous times regarding Ellen White contradicting scripture like I said and and claiming the priest took the blood daily into the sac into the sanctuary on behalf of penitent Israelites in the antitype. They claim that’s supposed to be what Jesus did. A penitent individual sin is transferred

To the heavenly sanctuary by means of Jesus’s blood, which would be defiled blood. Mr. Wilson, it’s part of why I’ve asked various SDA scholars how this blood was transferred there. I can’t get an answer. Is it in his body? Is it external to himself? How? How? None of them will tell me. They just keep pointing me to weighty scholastic works that don’t get into it. It’s like, are we supposed to believe that Jesus has sin laden blood courarssing through him? This tends to be where they’ll get skittish and say, well, it’s only figuratively. It’s in

Type. Yeah, but this claim is ultimately coming from Ellen White. Scripture does not say that fermented wine is tainted. not Matthew 26:29 or any of the other proof texts that Ted cited that are just a rehash of the fundamental belie. Fermentation is a natural process that happens and it was actually the alcohols in the wine that aided ancient civilizations in cleansing contaminated water. Like the regular drinking water would have been mixed with wine at a very diluted ratio, but the alcohols would actually help kill the bacteria in the water. But furthermore, grape juice was

Invented Ted in 1869 by a Methodist Thomas Bramwell Welch Welchas who was a supporter of the temperance movement, the movement that influenced the 19th century health reform movement of which Ellen White was heavily influenced even down to the phrasing of the pure juice of the grape. That was the the the the term that they were rolling with the temperance movement. Notice an article from the United Methodist Church from their own website. Article is titled Communion and Welchious Grape Juice. Quote, “You’re probably familiar with Welchious Grape

Juice, but you may not know it has ties to the history of the United Methodist Church. In the 1800s, churches faced a dilemma. To combat the epidemic of alcoholism, the temperance movement advocated total abstinence from all alcohol. In celebration of the Lord’s supper, though, the church filled the communion chalice with wine. “Substituting grape juice seems an obvious solution for us today. It is such common practice. We don’t know any different,” explains Adrien Pacenti, church historian at First United Methodist Church in Vinand, New Jersey.

Well, in the 1800s, however, that was no easy task. Raw grape juice stored at room temperature. Home refrigerators were not available until 1913 naturally fermentss into wine. This caused a problem for congregations not wanting to use anything containing alcohol. Grape juice did not exist in ancient times like that. The skins of grapes produce yeast and the grape itself is loaded with sugar. Once you smash the grape, the yeast reacts to the sugars and begins fermenting. Close quote. Yeah, sorry Ted, but Ellen White was wrong once again. He cited Proverbs 20:1

And 231-2. Yeah, that didn’t say anything about tea totelling. That was read into the text. It says one who is led astray by it is it is not wise. That’s not what’s happening in the Lord’s supper. Ted people, what this is why you need to look at scripture in total when arriving at conclusions and not individual proof texts that you think help your case. But he cited those passages because that’s what Ellen White commented on them in her book, Ministry of Health, and the SDA church teaches. That’s like a divinely inspired commentary. But once again, Ellen is wrong. First, notice

Deuteronomy 14. Then we’re going to look at her statement in Ministry of Health. God’s word, Deuteronomy 14. Quote, “You shall tithe all the yield of your seed that comes from the field yearbyear.” This is God laying out the tithe require tithing requirements. And before the Lord your God in the place that he will choose to make his name dwell there, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil, and the firstborn of your herd and flock, that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. And if the weight is too long for you,

So that you are not able to carry the tithe, when the Lord your God blesses you because the place is too far from you, which the Lord your God chooses to set his name there, then you shall turn it into money and bind up the money in your hand and go to the place that the Lord your God chooses and spend the money for whatever you desire, oxen or sheep. or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves. And you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and rejoice, you and your household, and you shall not neglect the Levite who is within your towns, for he

Has no portion or inheritance with you.” Thus, the reading of God’s holy word. God commanded the Israelites to consume wine in his presence if they so chose to spend the money from the tithe feast on such. Again, if you abuse Proverbs like Ted did, you now have contradictions because he said Proverbs 21 was saying a tea total of strong drink and wine when actually God at one point commanded it be consumed in his presence if that’s what was purchased with the blessing money. But did you notice that he said Adventists seek to honor Christ’s sacrifice for us with a clear mind? Ted,

I’m not sure if you realize this or not. I mean, maybe you don’t, but the amount of wine consumed in communion uh does not cloud one’s mind, sir. I’m not saying everyone has to be like tuned into alcohol culture or alcohol for that matter. But this is a a sort of insight Christian that this the insight into the framework that this is coming from. Any alcohol clouds the mind in Ted’s eyes. But this is what Ted is ultimately referencing. Ellen White, Ministry of Health. This is her commenting on John 2 and the wedding at Kaa, which they also teach was

Unfermented grape juice. quote, “The Bible nowhere sanctions the use of intoxicating wine. The wine that Christ made from water at the marriage feast of Canaa was the pure juice of the grape.” This is the new wine found in the cluster of which the scripture says, “Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it.” Isaiah 65:8. It was Christ who in the Old Testament gave the warning to Israel, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” Proverbs 20:1. He himself provided no such beverage. Close quote. Ah, so the Bible nowhere

Sanctions the use of fermented wine, and God in the Old Testament provided no such beverage or in the New with the wedding at Kaa. Despite what we just saw in Deuteronomy 14, the preacher of Ecclesiastes, “Go eat your bread with joy and drink your wine with a merry heart, for God has already approved what you do.” Ecclesiastes 9:7. Adventists love the book of Ecclesiastes when it comes to the nature of man and the state of the dead, which is not what’s being taught there. But not when it says stuff like this. This phrase eat and drink is used elsewhere in this book

By the way to refer to the satisfaction of life. Remember this is poetry. He says despite the vanity of life, the toils under the sun. He he goes through all these things. He then says, “Eat your bread and drink your wine with a happy heart, knowing that there’s still joys in this life and that God accepts you.” Now, the preacher of of Ecclesiastes was not a tea totler and neither was the psalmist. Notice you cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the

Heart of man. Oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart. Again, the psalmist exclaiming the goodness and wonders of God, that’s the context of the psalm. Speaks on the numerous ways that God takes care of and provides for the creation. Part of that includes him bringing forth from the earth food and wine to gladden the heart of man because yes, wine does gladden the heart. So Ellen White says God never provided alcohol. Yet the psalmist giving praise to the creator says that God causes the grass to grow to feed the livestock, plants to

Cultivate, food from the earth, and wine to gladden the heart. No, the the psalmist was not a tea totler. and Ellen White contradicts the word of God. Once again, the SDA church’s interpretation and application of the text in Proverbs along with Ellen White’s explicit statements create contradictions when engaging with the whole of scripture. So, why people need to have a balanced view? Furthermore, it’s interesting that Ted mentions alcohol clouding the mind in the context of the Lord’s supper because notice the Apostle Paul 1 Corinthians 11:17-26.

But in the following instructions, I do not commend you because when you come together, it is not for the better, but for the worse. For in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. What do you not have houses to eat and drink

In? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not. For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread

And drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” Thus, the reading of God’s holy word. So it’s interesting to note the way Paul speaks of the body of Christ. One verse he speaks of the sacramental body of Christ, the bread as Christ’s body. Then he speaks of Christ’s historical body, the body that was crucified for us. And then he speaks of the ecclesiastical or ecclesial sorry body, the body uh as the church. Just a fascinating observation there because it shows that the Eucharist is not just a mere memorial or um you know just some sort of going

Through the motions practice. All three of these things are at play in the taking of the supper. But what’s going on here? Paul chastises them for a number of things. Some of the ones in this chapter deal with the Lord’s supper and what was taking place. They were coming together bringing their own meal and wine to which they are rebuked. Ted, how are they getting drunk on unfermented grape juice? They weren’t because it didn’t exist. They’re chastised for getting drunk on communion wine that they themselves were bringing from home. Which is why Paul says you’re not

Actually taking that’s not how this works. You don’t just get to bring your own grape juice and food and say it’s the Lord’s that’s that’s not how this works. Got to be lawfully administered. But why didn’t Paul correct them here and say also uh why are you using fermented grape juice? He doesn’t. There’s no correction here to the fact that actual fermented wine was being used by them. In fact, he says if you’re going to drink, drink that at home, not here. He doesn’t say you shouldn’t be drinking that at all. No, he doesn’t actually tell them to not

Drink fermented wine. That you should only be drinking grape juice or whatever. No, he rebukes them for drunkenness. Because scripture doesn’t forbid or condemn alcohol outright. It condemns drunkenness, a lifestyle of drinking and overindulgence. You don’t you don’t become drunk and cloud your mind by simply sipping from the chalice. Like they they may have there but normatively speaking in the the like dude little kids in my church are are drinking the communion wine. You think their mind is now becoming clouded be? No. Notice Paul’s emphasis on the cup, not

Cups plural. So if they want to be as consistent with unleavened bread and be as exact as Jesus was, remember Ellen saw that in vision. The SDA church needs to start using a single cup of real wine, not Welches. There was also again no mention of footwashing when Paul corrects them by reiterating how Christ himself instituted the supper and how it’s to be practiced. The SDA church does not have a comprehensive view of wine in scripture despite their strong insistence that it represents uh false doctrines in the book of Revelation. But as it pertains to the wedding at

Kaa, Ellen was wrong on this too. First, the word wine there is the standard Greek word for normal fermented wine. You don’t need to be a Greek gramarian to check this out, folks. The the the word is oos. It’s the same word. It’s a very simple word in in Greek, too. It’s the same word that Paul uses in Ephesians 5:18 where he says to not be drunk on it. Ted, I have yet to meet the person that’s gotten drunk off of unfermented grape juice. But even from within the text itself, one can deduce that it isn’t grape juice from the narrative. Remember what

Happens. The master of the banquet was shocked that the wine that Jesus made was better than the wine that was initially uh initially given to the guests in John 2 9-10. This is because the better tasting wine would be served first and once the guest had thrown back a couple drinks, the cheaper wine didn’t taste as bad or as poor. If you’ve ever had wine before, you can attest to this. But Jesus did the opposite. He served the better wine after the other was gone and it was better than the original. Guy comes over and he tastes it and he goes, “Whoa, you saved the better wine

For for now. This makes no sense if the passage was talking about grape juice.” So if God showed Ellen White in vision that we’re to follow Jesus as exact as possible, the SDA church is in disobedience by administering it to women, not using a single chalice, and using grape juice. Oh, and you should also be practicing the holy kiss because that’s supposed to be one of these hallmarks that the wicked are going to fall down and and worship at their feet. And and that’s one of the signs that the wicked know that they’re really God’s people because they’re willing to engage

In these acts of humility. The Eucharist is one of the many, many reasons, folks, that I could never return to the SDA church. Christians have always believed, always, yes, always, that Christ is present and received in the supper. Modern-day evangelicalism and 7th Day Adventism are out of harmony with this. Sorry, it’s just the facts. There have been arguments surrounding the mechanics of that. But understanding Christ’s presence in the supper and that upon receiving it, you receive Christ and his benefits which sign and seal the gospel to you is what will truly energize you.

You want to talk about showing up and receiving Christ and being energized. It’s like, man, I tear up sometimes when I approach the T. It just ah, it just it is not the same, folks. It is not the same. just once every quarter. Sometimes they’ll pair it with what they call an agape feast. It it just and it’s just like it’s like this melancholy sort of like oh we just sit there and we think and like oh that that’s not what that’s not what it’s about. It’s not what that’s about. Yes, it’s great to to meditate on those things, but you should be meditating on

That stuff daily, folks. Daily. Eucharist is is more than that. It is it is there’s a consecrated act that happens making those ordinary means holy mean it just the SDA church doesn’t teach that they don’t practice that it’s like pe they it just there’s so many things so it’s not about meditating on the investigative judgment and all the other adventist novelties that they are commemorating in their once a quarter ritual understand that when the SDA church talks about atonement They mean their novel doctrine of 1844 in the investigative judgment. You have

To understand this Christian. The cross was only where the atoning sacrifice took place, not where atonement was made. Atonement is supposedly made in heaven beginning in 1844 and is a long drawn out process that is allegedly underway right now. And it is this that the SDA church is pointed to when they talk about the cross because the cross is where they claim Satan was silenced. It was proven that fallen man can keep the law with Jesus’s help and is the keystone in the Adventist God vindicating his character in the great controversy. All of that is what undergurs their

Borrowing of Christian terminology and practice upon filtering it through their extra biblical worldview. This subject is another telltale sign. What was the thesis for tonight? This subject is another telltale sign that the SDA church is not Protestant. And when they appeal to this, it is superficial. So if you’re a Catholic, an Orthodox, Assyrian church, church of the East, Marionite church, whatever, stop saddling Protestants with this nonsense. They’re not Protestant. Protestants recognize two sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist, not three. Not baptism,

Footwashing in the Lord’s supper. Protestants believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist. Protestants believe the sacraments are an actual means of grace. The SDA church needs to stop claiming to be Protestants and own that they are their own thing. Own it. Own it. Be proud of it. You guys are supposed to be this called out people, separate and distinct from everyone else. Then own it. Own it. Stop trying to to blend in and do this back and forth thing. Own it and defend what you actually believe. It drives me bonkers with them, folks. Just these silly games of like every

Single thing you bring up is wrong. Every single thing, anything I mention is all wrong. I know absolutely nothing about Adventism. Every single thing I say is false. When you get somebody like that, folks, you know, you’re not dealing with serious people. You’re not dealing with serious people. It’s just silly to think this. No, they do that because they don’t want to actually own what they believe and have to defend it. So, it’s easier to just do the lowhanging fruit response of, “Well, you’re just a liar. You don’t even know what you’re talking about.” Yeah. Okay.

No. Own it. Own that you are your own thing. Stop trying to confuse people and and giving ammunition to as lowhanging fruit to people like Roman Catholics, Orthodox, etc. who like to point to sex like the SDAs and saddle Protestants with that mess. No, not going to happen. Not going to happen. In the words of Thomas Watson in the opening paragraph of his little book that we looked at a quote from earlier, quote, “The celebration of the Lord’s supper is the commemoration of the greatest blessing that ever the world enjoyed,” says John Croissm. A sacrament is a visible

Sermon, and herein the sacrament excels the word preached. The word is a trumpet to proclaim Christ. The eukarist is a glass to represent him. This has me excited to take the supper this Lord’s day and be reminded of Christ and the gospel and to approach our Lord at his table with real wine in a single chalice shared by the body as we proclaim his death until he returns. May Christ richly bless you in the grace and peace won by him and his vicarious death on the cross for sinners. Hallelujah.