S
SecretaryMonday
Guest
“you can only do it if you think hard and make enough ‘harumphing’ sounds first” - lol! If you can manage to do that, you can do almost anything.
- Status
B
bitznbitez
Guest
From an SDA background the first bullet, State of the Dead is the key. You can’t get to the other doctrines of the afterlife, communion of saints etc. unless you think that we do in fact live on after death. But if you have accepted that, the rest turn out to be surprisingly simple.
I don’t have time to bite that off this morning. But I’ll respond soon.
C
chero23
Guest
I know my girlfriend and I had a huge discussion regarding our blessed mother. She said, I believe she’s sleeping just like everyone else who is dead. I told her, look first of all she tells us that all generations must call her blessed. She told you, it’s in the bible and theirs no and’s, ifs or buts. I then told her, you don’t think god would want her mother next to him. She responded as most Protestants would and saying where is it in the bible. So I showed her apocalypse 12:1 were it speaks of the lady with the moon underneath her feet and she’s overshadowing the sun.
I think the virgin mother is the simplest thing to argue and defend. By the simple notion that she’s Jesus mother, whose the 2nd part of the trinity, who by the way is god, should be enough for anybody to call her mother
C
Crescentinus
Guest
I’ve come across many SDA polemicists and proselytizers. A general trend that I’ve seen with both is that they use various logical fallacies, the worst of which would have to be reductio ad Hitlerum. One SDA proselytizer even claimed that Pope Pius XII is a Nazi!
To be fair, I do have a friend who is a Seventh-Day Adventist. However, he is not like those polemicists. He is not like the proselytizers either.
To be fair, I do have a friend who is a Seventh-Day Adventist. However, he is not like those polemicists. He is not like the proselytizers either.
P
pablope
Guest
From the reliable PhilVaz:
philvaz.com/apologetics/num10.htm
Examination of Conditional Immortality, “Soul Sleep” and “Annihilationism”
A Biblical Response to a Seventh-day Adventist
The resurrected believer enjoys eternal bliss in heaven while the wicked or unbeliever is to be annihilated or extinguished or snuffed out of existence at the final resurrection. The penalty in this view is eternal death (meaning extinction) and not eternal torment. As we see from the above, three ideas are contrasted –
(1) Conditional Immortality v. Unconditional Immortality
(2) Soul Sleep v. Immortal Soul
(3) Annihilation v. Eternal Torment
The main question to be examined – Which view is biblical?
Now where did this idea of “soul sleep” and annihilation come from?
It was first defended by Arnobius of Sicca (c. 327 A.D.), a/k/a Arnobius the Elder, born a pagan and for many years was a vigorous opponent of Christianity. Dr. Morey, citing standard reference works such as BAKER’S DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY and Protestant church historian Philip Schaff, traces the belief to Arnobius in the early fourth century.
From a warning in his dreams, Arnobius was converted to the faith and became a teacher of rhetoric at Sicca in Africa and numbered Lactantius among his pupils. He is author of a treatise in seven books titled “Against the Pagans” (c. 305 A.D.). Fr. Jurgens comments –
“Presented as a defense of Christianity against the numerous false charges of its adversaries, and written about the year 305 A.D., the work has little to recommend it. It was written hastily by a man who had very little understanding of Christianity; yet, it does have a certain value of its own: it is a precious source of information on the pagan cults of Arnobius’ time.” (THE FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS, Volume 1, page 262)
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, Volume 2, page 858ff cited in Morey, page 199)
This “soul sleep” view was later defended by various Anabaptists, Waldensian, and Socinian heretics during and just before the Reformation period which caused Calvin to write his -Psychopannychia- in response.
Soul sleep is clearly not the orthodox view of the Christian church and both Conditionalism and Universalism was condemned as early as the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 AD while the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) later condemned erroneous views on the soul.
Even Leroy Froom, who has written the largest defense of the teaching titled THE CONDITIONALIST FAITH OF OUR FATHERS (Review and Harald Publishing, 1966) is forced to admit that no Christian thinker before the 12th century can clearly be claimed as a “conditionalist” (see Morey’s work which deals extensively with Froom’s arguments).
Now that we have discussed the historical background showing the doctrines of “soul sleep” and its concomitant teachings of both conditional immortality and annihilationism (although they are not necessarily linked) are clearly not the orthodox teaching of the historic Christian church (neither Catholic nor Orthodox nor Protestant), we shall delve into the proposed biblical support for these unorthodox teachings.
What must first be noted is the sloppy hermeneutical principle used by the soul sleep advocates is rejected by all biblical scholars (except SdA scholars). One does not go prancing through the Old Testament looking for obscure passages to develop any coherent view of the afterlife. The proper hermeneutic or interpretive principle is to look first to the clarity of the NT which revealed what was obscure in the OT.
We have the word of the OT prophets “MADE MORE SURE” in the NT revelation of Christ and His holy apostles as “a lamp shining in a dark place” (2 Pet 1:19f). So we don’t ignore or suppress the clear doctrinal teaching of the NT in favor of some poetry in the OT Psalms, Job or Ecclesiastes. Indeed,
"…this means that we cannot base our understanding of death and an afterlife solely upon passages found in the Old Testament. Since the Old Testament prophets awaited the coming of the New Testament to supply them with the last pieces of the puzzle before the whole picture could be seen, we must recognize that the vision of the Old Testament prophets was intrinsically blurred and, as a result, was vague on most of the details.
“This point directly applies to such groups as the Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses. A survey of their literature reveals an almost total dependence on Old Testament texts to support their theory of soul sleep and annihilationism.” (Dr. Robert Morey, DEATH AND THE AFTERLIFE, page 23)
B
bitznbitez
Guest
What one must understand when interacting with those riased as SDAs is that, in general, while they do think in ways that don’t make sense to most, to them it makes perfect sense and that is how they think. Its literally who they are and they can’t just stop thinking that way. Before one can reach an SDA, or anyone else, one must first understand how they think. You must understand the question behind the question and address that.
Take for example the assumption of Mary. Its “not biblical” and “mary died” etc. thus claims she is with us still and can from time to time appear etc. are thought to be anathema to an adventist more so than to other protestants.
This response thinks along lines that assume certain SDA ways of thinking.
To answer this the most effective approach is to take up the question of the Canon of scripture as it existed during the life of Christ and the apostles. It was the Old Testament only. And just accept the smaller protestant canon of the old testament. Note that there is no scripture from the New Testament available.
Scripture at the time of Christ says clearly that Moses died and was buried ( Dt 34 ). If you were a “Bible Believing” Jew at the time of Christ there would be no question Moses died and was buried. Nothing in scripture would say otherwise. Someone claiming to have seen moses would have been saying “non biblical” things.
Yet on the mountain, in the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah appear on to Christ, Peter, James and John. Elijah isn’t significant as per scripture he was taken up without dying but Moses is significant he died and was buried. He not only appears, he talks with Christ, and the apostles hear him, about what had been happening and what would happen soon, the future.
Now the response is “but moses was later raised from the dead”. The NT passage didn’t exist that usually goes along with it, the one about angels contending for the body of moses.
The “Bible and Bible Only” approach to not allowing a dead person to later appear that is not said in scripture to rise, had that belief been held by Peter/James/John would have required them to decide the appearance of Moses was demonic. The term for the act of Moses being taken up to heaven ( as SDAs believe he was ) is assumption. Clearly the apostles were ok with this idea.
The Church likewise believes that Mary, not stated in scripture, was taken up bodily, the assumption of Mary, when her natural life was complete, and thus can appear. Yes its “non biblical” just like to the apostles the appearance of moses was “non biblical”. And like Moses she is aware of what is happening on the earth and communicates with those on the earth.
Of note this only addresses Mary not the others who have not been assumed.
Hope this is of some help to you dreamfleur, from an SDA perspective…
If you want to stretch your mind a bit farther. Look at the traditional pictures of Mary, you konw the ones we always said showed “pagan influence” and such. The ones where she stands on a globe, and with a crescent moon under her feet, and has a halo of stars, usually with a blue robe often with stars and with light beaming out from around her. You and I dreamfleur instinctively react to that as “paganism” because of our conditioning. But compare Revelation 12 to that picture. “I saw a woman in heaven, clothed with the sun, with a crown of 12 stars, and with the earth and moon under her feet” [by memory so i paraphrased] you should notice that this image of Mary is indeed the same image as Revelation 12 paints. Why would the church in her icons and statues use this imagery for Mary ? Because Rev 12 identifies her as the woman who bore a son who would rule all nations, which we all understand as Christ. The woman who bore Christ is Mary. There are ways of understanding the rest of it such as the dragon attacking the child and so on but you should see the point I’m making, though you may not yet be ready to accept it.
Take for example the assumption of Mary. Its “not biblical” and “mary died” etc. thus claims she is with us still and can from time to time appear etc. are thought to be anathema to an adventist more so than to other protestants.
This response thinks along lines that assume certain SDA ways of thinking.
To answer this the most effective approach is to take up the question of the Canon of scripture as it existed during the life of Christ and the apostles. It was the Old Testament only. And just accept the smaller protestant canon of the old testament. Note that there is no scripture from the New Testament available.
Scripture at the time of Christ says clearly that Moses died and was buried ( Dt 34 ). If you were a “Bible Believing” Jew at the time of Christ there would be no question Moses died and was buried. Nothing in scripture would say otherwise. Someone claiming to have seen moses would have been saying “non biblical” things.
Yet on the mountain, in the transfiguration, Moses and Elijah appear on to Christ, Peter, James and John. Elijah isn’t significant as per scripture he was taken up without dying but Moses is significant he died and was buried. He not only appears, he talks with Christ, and the apostles hear him, about what had been happening and what would happen soon, the future.
Now the response is “but moses was later raised from the dead”. The NT passage didn’t exist that usually goes along with it, the one about angels contending for the body of moses.
The “Bible and Bible Only” approach to not allowing a dead person to later appear that is not said in scripture to rise, had that belief been held by Peter/James/John would have required them to decide the appearance of Moses was demonic. The term for the act of Moses being taken up to heaven ( as SDAs believe he was ) is assumption. Clearly the apostles were ok with this idea.
The Church likewise believes that Mary, not stated in scripture, was taken up bodily, the assumption of Mary, when her natural life was complete, and thus can appear. Yes its “non biblical” just like to the apostles the appearance of moses was “non biblical”. And like Moses she is aware of what is happening on the earth and communicates with those on the earth.
Of note this only addresses Mary not the others who have not been assumed.
Hope this is of some help to you dreamfleur, from an SDA perspective…
If you want to stretch your mind a bit farther. Look at the traditional pictures of Mary, you konw the ones we always said showed “pagan influence” and such. The ones where she stands on a globe, and with a crescent moon under her feet, and has a halo of stars, usually with a blue robe often with stars and with light beaming out from around her. You and I dreamfleur instinctively react to that as “paganism” because of our conditioning. But compare Revelation 12 to that picture. “I saw a woman in heaven, clothed with the sun, with a crown of 12 stars, and with the earth and moon under her feet” [by memory so i paraphrased] you should notice that this image of Mary is indeed the same image as Revelation 12 paints. Why would the church in her icons and statues use this imagery for Mary ? Because Rev 12 identifies her as the woman who bore a son who would rule all nations, which we all understand as Christ. The woman who bore Christ is Mary. There are ways of understanding the rest of it such as the dragon attacking the child and so on but you should see the point I’m making, though you may not yet be ready to accept it.
S
SecretaryMonday
Guest
One thought that I have about the Assumption of the Virgin being non-scriptural and a product of later (pagan) tradition:
It is written that both Enoch and Elijah were assumed bodily into heaven, but the scriptural records of these events did not occur right away, especially in the case of Enoch. If Moses was the author of Genesis, he was writing about Enoch about few thousand years after the fact. Enoch’s assumption would have had to have been preserved as some kind of tradition during all of that time. Yet when Christian sacred tradition claims, very early, that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven (unlike the others, she is supposed to have died first), it must be false (at best) because its “only” tradition?
Also, someone (maybe Lee Strobel?) makes the point that, if Jesus did not actually rise from the dead and ascend into heaven, where is the body? The early Christians, as pious as they were, did not pay visits to his body. They adored the Shroud and an empty tomb, but not a body.
I think that the same could be said about Mary; the Church has an ancient tradition that she was assumed bodily into heaven, and while pilgrims may visit an empty tomb that is believed to have been hers, there’s no body. When you think about how important the bodies of the saints were to the early Christians, and how quickly the Church came to acknowledge Mary as the greatest saint, it seems very odd that there doesn’t appear to be a corpse.
It is written that both Enoch and Elijah were assumed bodily into heaven, but the scriptural records of these events did not occur right away, especially in the case of Enoch. If Moses was the author of Genesis, he was writing about Enoch about few thousand years after the fact. Enoch’s assumption would have had to have been preserved as some kind of tradition during all of that time. Yet when Christian sacred tradition claims, very early, that Mary was bodily assumed into Heaven (unlike the others, she is supposed to have died first), it must be false (at best) because its “only” tradition?
Also, someone (maybe Lee Strobel?) makes the point that, if Jesus did not actually rise from the dead and ascend into heaven, where is the body? The early Christians, as pious as they were, did not pay visits to his body. They adored the Shroud and an empty tomb, but not a body.
I think that the same could be said about Mary; the Church has an ancient tradition that she was assumed bodily into heaven, and while pilgrims may visit an empty tomb that is believed to have been hers, there’s no body. When you think about how important the bodies of the saints were to the early Christians, and how quickly the Church came to acknowledge Mary as the greatest saint, it seems very odd that there doesn’t appear to be a corpse.
D
dreamfleur
Guest
Thank you, Thank you.
I have been struggling with Mary for the past month or so, but I think I FINALLY got it ( or I’m getting close). Here’s my take:
-In reading the Protoevangelium of James I see that Mary was indeed “special”.
I have been struggling with Mary for the past month or so, but I think I FINALLY got it ( or I’m getting close). Here’s my take:
-In reading the Protoevangelium of James I see that Mary was indeed “special”.
- The prophet Isaiah tells that the Messiah would be born of a virgin so I imagine that there were girls that were dedicated to this purpose back in those days and prepared just in case they were chosen.
- NOT ONE of the Holy people that God chose to do His special work was ever “thrown” out of the BIG PICTURE. How much more Mary the Mother of God.
-According to the Protoevangelium of James she was given to Joseph for him to care for her (after Joseph also being chosen by the blooming of his staff and the dove). He was to “care” for her but he was a widower and he was OLD so I don’t think that they were to be a “couple” in any other sense than the “parents” of Jesus. Jesus’ brothers would have been Joseph’s children from a prior marriage. - Because Mary had a child with God it technically meant He was her spouse, for her to be with another man would mean she was committing adultery and breaking a commandment.
- With regard to her assumption, with the belief that relics have power I imagine that God assumed her body because her body would have had A LOT of power.( I am assuming that Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus because their body was assumed (which means they are IN WHOLE in heaven, not just spirit) and so Mary is as well, which is why she can appear?)
- Oh, and with regard to the commandment “Honor your father and your mother”. Jesus also keeps the commandments and if He honors his mother… maybe we should too?
D
dreamfleur
Guest
You’re absolutely right. It is the SDA “pre-conditioning”. I have a hard time looking at those pictures because I have been “brain washed” in a way. I automatically think it is pagan.
With regards to Revelation 12, I know what the SDA’s believe it’s saying and now I learned how the CC interprets it. It makes A LOT more sense when looked at as Mary.
B
bitznbitez
Guest
Get a picture of Mary with those elements like this one ] and Rev 12 wording and keep them out somewhere next to each other. Keep looking at both. Eventually you’ll get to where you understand it at an emotional level instead of simply at a rational level.
If your grandma ( or somesuch ) were still alive in heaven, would they pray for you as they did when they were here on earth ? The answer is an obvious “of course”. Thats why the jump after the state of the dead question is resolved actually moves pretty quickly thru the communion of saints etc.
I will try to respond to the state of the dead sometime in the not to distant future…
P
pablope
Guest
S
SecretaryMonday
Guest
You have probably already found it, but in case you would like scriptural evidence for God healing through relics, here are some NT ones (there’s some in the OT as well, such as the bones of a prophet healing a random murder victim), Acts 5:15 (Peter’s shadow) and Acts 19:11-12 (Paul’s handkerchief/apron) might help.
D
dreamfleur
Guest
Thank you
P
Pythons
Guest
I’ve spent enough time with them ( on various forums & some relatives ) I might as well be considered “X”…
…IMHO the elephant in the room whereas SDA is concerned isn’t really their Sabbath teaching.
…It’s their rank Arianism in their feverish promulgation of what they describe as “creature Christ”.
The SDA’s believe that prior to the resurrection of Christ that He was a creature which was begat from the Father…
…So the difference between Lucifer and Christ was that Lucifer was made from nothing ( correct by the way ).
…While Christ was always “in” the Father but w/out His own identity.
When Father God thought Christ was “ready” Father God promoted creature Christ to be as if He was equal with the Father…
…Then after Original sin creature Christ begged Father God to come to try to save humanity.
The really bad part of this is that the Seventh-day Adventists ( and all Arian, Semi-Arian groups ) maintain…
…That because Christ was “a creature” that He could have sinned and failed.
…And had that happened Father God ( the real One God ).
…Would have been forced to eternally annihilate creature Christ.
The Sabbath teaching of the SDA’s is more of a “loss leader” designed to get ya in the door…
…Then, when the time is right, they will really start to pound Ellen White ( their prophet ) into ya.
…And with that comes “the creature Christ” training.
…IMHO the elephant in the room whereas SDA is concerned isn’t really their Sabbath teaching.
…It’s their rank Arianism in their feverish promulgation of what they describe as “creature Christ”.
The SDA’s believe that prior to the resurrection of Christ that He was a creature which was begat from the Father…
…So the difference between Lucifer and Christ was that Lucifer was made from nothing ( correct by the way ).
…While Christ was always “in” the Father but w/out His own identity.
When Father God thought Christ was “ready” Father God promoted creature Christ to be as if He was equal with the Father…
…Then after Original sin creature Christ begged Father God to come to try to save humanity.
The really bad part of this is that the Seventh-day Adventists ( and all Arian, Semi-Arian groups ) maintain…
…That because Christ was “a creature” that He could have sinned and failed.
…And had that happened Father God ( the real One God ).
…Would have been forced to eternally annihilate creature Christ.
The Sabbath teaching of the SDA’s is more of a “loss leader” designed to get ya in the door…
…Then, when the time is right, they will really start to pound Ellen White ( their prophet ) into ya.
…And with that comes “the creature Christ” training.
S
SecretaryMonday
Guest
I went to the birthday party of an SDA friend - I think I was the only non-SDA there (definitely the only Catholic, lol!) In line for food, some of the guests were discussing an Adventist seminar (is that the word?) that they had attended on the nature of Christ, and how it was possible/probable that Christ had original sin like us. Maybe a Christ with original sin is the logical conclusion if you accept that Mary was not immaculately conceived? (I’m not logical today, so I don’t know.
)
C
chero23
Guest
how could they actually say that? they don’t believe in God and his power then? PPL who are not smart when it comes to GodI went to the birthday party of an SDA friend - I think I was the only non-SDA there (definitely the only Catholic, lol!) In line for food, some of the guests were discussing an Adventist seminar (is that the word?) that they had attended on the nature of Christ, and how it was possible/probable that Christ had original sin like us. Maybe a Christ with original sin is the logical conclusion if you accept that Mary was not immaculately conceived? (I’m not logical today, so I don’t know.
S
SecretaryMonday
Guest
The verse that comes immediately to mind is “Christ was like us in all ways except sin.” (Maybe that isn’t an exact quote, but its what I remember.) BUT if someone believed that Mary was not sinless, how do they NOT believe that Christ had original sin? They’d have to argue that sin somehow comes from the father, therefore the virgin birth would eliminate that problem. But if Mary carried original sin, and Christ was formed from Mary…
P
Pythons
Guest
The SDA’s believe that Christ Incarnated into a body saturated with sin…I went to the birthday party of an SDA friend - I think I was the only non-SDA there (definitely the only Catholic, lol!) In line for food, some of the guests were discussing an Adventist seminar (is that the word?) that they had attended on the nature of Christ, and how it was possible/probable that Christ had original sin like us. Maybe a Christ with original sin is the logical conclusion if you accept that Mary was not immaculately conceived? (I’m not logical today, so I don’t know.
…Thus they teach Christ had to overcome His yearning for sin, otherwise God would have annihilated Him.
D
dreamfleur
Guest
Ellen White states this in many of her writings. This is not presented up front but it is the underlying teaching, I think. It can’t be explained because it makes no sense. On the one hand they say that (that Christ could have had sin)… and on the other hand they say Christ was truly God , they also teach that Christ is Michael the Archangel. Unfortunately this denomination is not upfront when their identity is involved, they usually have names other than SDA on their publications.
Their seminars are definitely “unique” in the ways that they presents information from the Bible. They usually “unlock” some kind of secret that nobody else knows…or so they claim.
Their seminars are definitely “unique” in the ways that they presents information from the Bible. They usually “unlock” some kind of secret that nobody else knows…or so they claim.
S
SecretaryMonday
Guest
They aren’t the only ones. I have heard independant non-SDA preachers on the radio who suggested that Michael was a “pre-incarnate” appearance of Christ (probably because of the “He who is like God” title, and the fact that Michael is the one who is fighting for us). I seem to remember hearing this in Sunday School at my previous church (Reformed-ish). Not that He was an angel, but that this angel was His particular pre-Christmas form.
- Status