7th day adventists please answer

[mackbrislawn]

I too would be interested in the SDA answer. However, here is my personal belief as an LDS member. Jesus Christ established His Church. He selected twelve apostles who would guide the Church through revelation when Jesus was no longer on the earth. The apostles were killed and revelation ceased. Some members fell away due to various reasons. However, I believe that many held to the truth that they had been taught by the apostles. The Church continued with bishops as leaders of local congregations. Without the central authority of the apostles guiding the Church through revelation, doctrine in the various congregations began to drift apart. The differences were especially apparent between the Greek speaking churches in the East and the Latin speaking churches in the West. In 325 AD Constantine called a council to unite the Church. In order to disclaim the false teachings of the Arians, Constantine established a Creed which was also in error. All the bishops were required to accept the Nicean Creed.

At least the LDS Church as an answer! I may not agree with it, but at least they also recognize the need for some kind of priesthood, and so they have re-instated it.

And the LDS recognize the need for an authoritative interpreter, an authoritative church. During the Reformation, this is one of the very things the reformers denied, that there is such a thing as an authoritative church. Both Catholics and LDS agree on this need. And Jehovah’s Witnesses agree as well. Except the Watchtower is that church. It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church, the LDS Church, and the Watchtower organization are very similar in hierarchy.

Does anyone know how the SDA is organized?

 

[rivera01]

Well, as far as I know, they are united in doctrine. But as far as who is the SDA “pope” I would not know. But they do not seem to be independent of each other. They got their own schools and printing house.

 

[Karamazov]

np I don’t either. I click the multi quote symbol and nothing occurs.

I’ve been on loads of forums and many of them have this “multi quote” button. I have no idea what it does. It seems to do nothing.

 

[BBaller]

I’ve been on loads of forums and many of them have this “multi quote” button. I have no idea what it does. It seems to do nothing.

I too had been wondering how some people can multi quote. Now I know…click the little multi quote button on the lower right of the posts/replies (yes, all of them) you want to quote, then near the top of the page, click reply. All your quotes should be in your post box for you to comment on.

 

[Big_Dummy]

This reply is kind of misleading. Because Christ’s promise was not a few believers, but the Church founded on Peter. Of course there were some episcopacies that did fall into heresy, and I think that this was expected. Especially since the Church was just starting to grow. But to say that the apostasy fell into the Church because of some believers accepted heresy is ludicrous. Since the promise was made to Peter and his episcopacy.

No, in context, Matthew 18:18 only the apostles were there and there is no indication in the texts that protection is being passed down to other bishops — arius is a good example.

And, as for the Matthew 16 text, before the reformation Peter as the rock was a minority interpretation.

The Religious roles of the papacy: ideals and realities 1150-1300
Christopher Ryan, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies

Faith, Christ, or Peter : Matthew 16:18 in sixteenth century Roman Catholic exegesis / John E. Bigane III

Biblical scholarship and the church : a sixteenth-century crisis of authority / Allan K. Jenkins and Jenkins, Allan K.,

The papacy and the petrine texts [microform] : a study in the history of biblical exegesis (A.D. 800-1300) / by Donald J. Grimes 1945-

Theological turning points: major issues in Christian thought By Donald K. McKim

Biblical scholarship and the church : a sixteenth-century crisis of authority / Allan K. Jenkins and Patrick Preston
Author Jenkins, Allan K., 1931-

bible.org/seriespage/exegetical-examination-matthew-1618

Is Rome the True Church?: A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim by Norm Geisler pages 73-4

Before you waste time posting quotes from the Fathers, I honestly don’t find them convincing because all you are doing is proof texting, ignoring the history of interpretation and ignoring textual criticism problems. If you take the time to study the history of interpretation as I am doing, you will find that your proof texts lack creditablity the way you are using them.

Aside: this SDA book explains their history of the falling away of the church
books.google.com/books?id=kS1IAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Fathers+of+the+Catholic+Church+By+Ellet+Joseph+Waggoner&source=bl&ots=zVZSREGFwG&sig=RgwdWeVvELaRuJsXQ689M2hqUww&hl=en&ei=CBSuTKj6NMiKnQfbsrSCBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=true

 

[brakelite]

Hi. Was browsing through the forums and came across this question. Rather than post the answer in full here, I include a link to a post here which I think may answer your questions.

BL

 

[rivera01]

No, in context, Matthew 18:18 only the apostles were there and there is no indication in the texts that protection is being passed down to other bishops — arius is a good example.

And, as for the Matthew 16 text, before the reformation Peter as the rock was a minority interpretation.

The Religious roles of the papacy: ideals and realities 1150-1300
Christopher Ryan, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies

Faith, Christ, or Peter : Matthew 16:18 in sixteenth century Roman Catholic exegesis / John E. Bigane III

Biblical scholarship and the church : a sixteenth-century crisis of authority / Allan K. Jenkins and Jenkins, Allan K.,

The papacy and the petrine texts [microform] : a study in the history of biblical exegesis (A.D. 800-1300) / by Donald J. Grimes 1945-

Theological turning points: major issues in Christian thought By Donald K. McKim

Biblical scholarship and the church : a sixteenth-century crisis of authority / Allan K. Jenkins and Patrick Preston
Author Jenkins, Allan K., 1931-

bible.org/seriespage/exegetical-examination-matthew-1618

Is Rome the True Church?: A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim by Norm Geisler pages 73-4

Before you waste time posting quotes from the Fathers, I honestly don’t find them convincing because all you are doing is proof texting, ignoring the history of interpretation and ignoring textual criticism problems. If you take the time to study the history of interpretation as I am doing, you will find that your proof texts lack creditablity the way you are using them.

Aside: this SDA book explains their history of the falling away of the church
books.google.com/books?id=kS1IAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Fathers+of+the+Catholic+Church+By+Ellet+Joseph+Waggoner&source=bl&ots=zVZSREGFwG&sig=RgwdWeVvELaRuJsXQ689M2hqUww&hl=en&ei=CBSuTKj6NMiKnQfbsrSCBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=true

This power that you refer to in Matthew 18:18 is that of forgiving sins, dont believe me start reading from verse 15 of the same chapter. The only person to whom Christ gave the Keys of Heaven, was Peter. Aruis wasnt even a bishop, he was a priest.

As far as the assertations that you are bringing up, I would recommend for you to listen to this audio clip by Steve Ray:
catholicaudio.blogspot.com/2007/09/steve-ray-papacy.html

 

[Big_Dummy]

I rather stick with the scholars, thanks. It is my experience that apologetists tends to proof text. The sources I listed plainly shows that Peter as the rock is a minority opinion just before the reformation.

It is clear that Jesus holds the keys even today,

Revelation 1:18
I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

If I understand the foundation correctly, as it is spelled out in the Shepard of Hermas and in the NT Jesus is both the bedrock, cornor stone of the foundation and key stone of the door to heaven. The apostles including Peter are smaller rocks, just like the prophets who make up part of the foundation, cemented together by Jesus – eph 2:20.

The phrase bind and loose has to do with interpreting the law of God, not forgiving sins.

Only God can forgive a sin that is against God himself. You and I can forgive someone who sins aganist us.

In scriptures where the apostles says something like “your sins are forgiven” they are simply announcing a state of being, not their ability to forgive a person in God’s place.

 

[Stephen168]

“The Corrupt religionists”. What does this statement mean?

A religious boogeyman doing things one doesn’t approve of; mythical people doing mythical things. If you want to believe something happened but have not real proof; the corrupt religionist did it.

 

[Big_Dummy]

EJ Waggoner, Fathers of the Catholic Church: A Brief Examination of the “Falling Away” of the Church in the First three Centuries books.google.com/books?id=kS1IAAAAIAAJ&pg=PR1&dq=EJ+Waggoner,+Fathers+of+the+Catholic+Church:+A+Brief+Examination+of+the+%22Falling+Away%22+of+the+Church+in+the+First+three+Centuries&hl=en&ei=B9W8TNyzKoeglAeEi-XIDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Seventh-day Adventist attitudes toward Roman Catholicism, 1844-1965Reinder Bruinsma
books.google.com/books?id=hlkmAQAAIAAJ&q=EJ+Waggoner,+Fathers+of+the+Catholic+Church:+A+Brief+Examination+of+the+%22Falling+Away%22+of+the+Church+in+the+First+three+Centuries&dq=EJ+Waggoner,+Fathers+of+the+Catholic+Church:+A+Brief+Examination+of+the+%22Falling+Away%22+of+the+Church+in+the+First+three+Centuries&hl=en&ei=B9W8TNyzKoeglAeEi-XIDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ

These two books likely give a good background concerning SDA mindset, thinking on this topic.

 

[mtolympus]

And, as for the Matthew 16 text, before the reformation Peter as the rock was a minority interpretation.

Faith, Christ, or Peter : Matthew 16:18 in sixteenth century Roman Catholic exegesis / John E. Bigane III

Here is another interpretation of Matthew 16. I believe it takes Jesus’ entire response to Peter to define the rock that Jesus’ Church would be built upon:

“And Jesus answered and said unto him, blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matt. 16:17-18) emphasis added.

Simon was blessed with the calling to lead the Church because his understanding came not by man, but by revelation from the Father. The italicized phrase indicates that the first half of Jesus’ statement is certainly as important as the second half. Jesus called Simon Barjona by a different name, “Peter,” (which means rock); after Jesus explained that Simon had received his understanding by revelation from the Father. An interpretation from Jesus’ entire statement might be: Thou art Peter (a leader who receives revelation from the Father) upon this rock I will build my church.

 

[thevoiceofone]

The SDA’s hold up the Bible (the incomplete version) alone as their rule and creed. How they came up with some of their doctrines, in that case, I have no idea, but they did. I don’t mean to belittle them, of course, a lot of their doctrines are perfectly accurate. But, they have ignored Paul’s fierce arguments against the influence of the Judaizers upon the early Christians. They, like so many other Protestants, have also ignored the writings of the early Church Fathers. The earliest Fathers were taught directly by the Apostles, and they wrote extensively about the Eucharist and all the other Sacraments, the Liturgy, and more, such as the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharist (and the agape) being celebrated on Sunday, not Saturday.

I only know one SDA. We don’t see each other much, so we haven’t had a good chance to debate these things. I don’t know what she would say about the original question posted here. I do know the SDA’s tend to be fiercely anti-Catholic, so dialogue will most likely be difficult no matter how you go about it.

 

[brakelite]

The SDA’s hold up the Bible (the incomplete version) alone as their rule and creed. How they came up with some of their doctrines, in that case, I have no idea, but they did.

All SDA doctrines are based on the scriptures.

I don’t mean to belittle them, of course, a lot of their doctrines are perfectly accurate. But, they have ignored Paul’s fierce arguments against the influence of the Judaizers upon the early Christians.

Keeping the Sabbath is not a result of Judaisers teaching OT theology, but simple a desire from the heart to obey God’s commandments. They do not accept that any commandment has been annuled or done away with, for Jesus said, "I come not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill. Truly,even though heaven and earth pas away, not one iota will pas from the law ".

They, like so many other Protestants, have also ignored the writings of the early Church Fathers. The earliest Fathers were taught directly by the Apostles, and they wrote extensively about the Eucharist and all the other Sacraments, the Liturgy, and more, such as the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharist (and the agape) being celebrated on Sunday, not Saturday.

Whatever the early church fathers wrote, it isn’t scripture. The apostolic fathers however…

I only know one SDA. We don’t see each other much, so we haven’t had a good chance to debate these things. I don’t know what she would say about the original question posted here. I do know the SDA’s tend to be fiercely anti-Catholic, so dialogue will most likely be difficult no matter how you go about it.

SDAs are not anti-Catholic. You would be very surprised at the number of ex-Catholics who are now members of the SDA church.The SDA church is the fastest growing Protestant church in the world, but particularly in traditionally Catholic countries in Central and South America, where the Latino channel ofthis TV broadcasting network is having a huge impact. If the SDA church was anti-Catholic, no Catholic would listen to what they have to say. Anti Catholicism yes, but no SDA has a beef with any individual Catholic.

 

[fbl9]

snip… Anti Catholicism yes, but no SDA has a beef with any individual Catholic.

Please explain what anti-catholicism means.

 

[SteveVH]

All SDA doctrines are based on the scriptures. Keeping the Sabbath is not a result of Judaisers teaching OT theology, but simple a desire from the heart to obey God’s commandments. They do not accept that any commandment has been annuled or done away with, for Jesus said, "I come not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill. Truly,even though heaven and earth pas away, not one iota will pas from the law ". Whatever the early church fathers wrote, it isn’t scripture. The apostolic fathers however…

SDAs are not anti-Catholic. You would be very surprised at the number of ex-Catholics who are now members of the SDA church.The SDA church is the fastest growing Protestant church in the world, but particularly in traditionally Catholic countries in Central and South America, where the Latino channel ofthis TV broadcasting network is having a huge impact. If the SDA church was anti-Catholic, no Catholic would listen to what they have to say. Anti Catholicism yes, but no SDA has a beef with any individual Catholic.

You are missing one important point. There are many who call themselves
“Catholic” who have little to no understanding of what it means to be Catholic. You will find many of these so-called Catholics abandoning their faith and joining various Protestant denominations as well as the more “cult like” organizations who erroneously refer to themselves as Christian. You will find few, if any, Catholics who are well catechised, ever leaving their faith.

So the fact that some of those I have described above may fall prey to SDA teachings says little about whether or not the SDA church is anti-Catholic. They may very well, in their ignorance, be attracted to the anti-Catholic rehtoric. Good catechesis has been lacking in the Catholic Church for too many years. There are signs of hope that this is changing, thank God.

 

[rivera01]

I dont know where you got the idea that SDA’s are not anti-Catholic, when they definately are. In their treachings, they claim, because of a Ellen G. White “prophecy”, that in the End Times, Catholics will persecute SDA’s. They claim that the Catholic Church is an abomination because Catholics worship on Sunday’s, and has pressured other denomitations into doing so as well. They teach the pope is the anti-Christ. If this isn’t anti-Catholicism, then I don’t know what is. Just because there are alot of ignorant Catholics converting to SDA doesnt mean anything about the SDA being anti-Catholic.

It is really not surpising to see the ECF’s being dismissed as quickly as you did, simply because it is not scripture. This wasnt the point of bringing it up. The point was that the testimony and the knowledge that was inherited to them from the apostles is of great wealth, that one should at least make an effort to study them, since their accounts are of great wealth.

 

[rivera01]

I rather stick with the scholars, thanks. It is my experience that apologetists tends to proof text. The sources I listed plainly shows that Peter as the rock is a minority opinion just before the reformation.

It is clear that Jesus holds the keys even today,

Revelation 1:18
I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

There is a clear distinction of keys here. You are quoting the keys of death and Hades. He gave to Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.

 

[agent_grey]

If the church became apostate then you must abstain from church till Christ himself returns.

 

[Bwtby]

I dont know where you got the idea that SDA’s are not anti-Catholic, when they definately are. In their treachings, they claim, because of a Ellen G. White “prophecy”, that in the End Times, Catholics will persecute SDA’s. They claim that the Catholic Church is an abomination because Catholics worship on Sunday’s, and has pressured other denomitations into doing so as well. They teach the pope is the anti-Christ. If this isn’t anti-Catholicism, then I don’t know what is. Just because there are alot of ignorant Catholics converting to SDA doesnt mean anything about the SDA being anti-Catholic.

Lol.

 

[Dokimas]

Please explain what anti-catholicism means.

I’ve been accused of being anti-catholic. I’d love to here a catholic definition of what that means and shown how I am anti-catholic.