Basic Adventist Answers

  • Thread starter Thread starter SDAgirl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
dhgray:
Who is Ellen Gould White and what importance does she have in your church?
According to the tests of a prophet in the Bible, she fulfills them. She wrote books pertaining to faith, the Bible, and end time events. Many people believe that we read her works more than we read the Bible. This is also untrue. It is just a “study guide” to the Bible in simplistic terms. She herself spent half of her books just quoting verses. But she is not the “God” of Adventism or anything. Just a commentator. When people called her a prophetess, she asked them not to and said she was just a tool of the Holy Spirit. She was meek in this way. Thats about the whole of it. Thanks for the question.
 
40.png
SDAgirl:
We believe that the true fullness of the gospel was not re-achieved until around the 1700s. Luther, Zwingli, Huss, etc. all had a piece of inspiration which was pieced together. Hence the different denominations. When Luthers followers heard Huss’s message, they would not believe so another church was born and so on. What the Adventist church did was look to the Bible, determine what they thought to be the core truths, and create a faith based on the best they could do with the best knowledge they had. I’m sure a scholar could explain it better, I’m just a stay at home mom. lol But thats my answer to the best of my knowledge.
And to us you guys are just one more of the thousands of Protestant denominations that resulted from Luther’s Apostasy. Wouldn’t this line you posted:

“When Luthers followers heard Huss’s message, they would not believe so another church was born and so on.”

Describe your Church? All you have to do is substitute ‘Luther’s’ followers for ‘Ellen White’s’ watch.

When Ellen White’s followers heard Joseph Smith’s message, they would not believe so another church was born and so on.

It’s tough for us to even discern how you are different from the one of thousands of Protestant denominations who despise Catholicism. You guys aren’t the only game in town, it’s too tough to keep up with.
 
Here is where I am trying to go with this

This power of order was committed by our Lord to His Apostles, who were to continue His work and to be His earthly representatives. The Apostles received their power from Christ: “as the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John 20:21). Christ possessed fullness of power in virtue of His priesthood–of His office as Redeemer and Mediator. He merited the grace which freed man from the bondage of sin, which grace is applied to man mediately by the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and immediately by the sacraments. He gave His Apostles the power to offer the Sacrifice (Luke 22:19), and dispense the sacraments (Matthew 28:18; John 20:22, 23); thus making them priests. It is true that every Christian receives sanctifying grace which confers on him a priesthood. Even as Israel under the Old dispensation was to God “a priestly kingdom” (Exodus 19:4-6), thus under the New, all Christians are “a kingly priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9); but now as then the special and sacramental priesthood strengthens and perfects the universal priesthood (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:3, 6; Romans 15:16).

We read of the deacons, how the Apostles “praying, imposed hands upon them” (Acts 6:6). In II Tim., i, 6 St. Paul reminds Timothy that he was made a bishop by the imposition of St. Paul’s hands (cf. 1 Timothy 4:4), and Timothy is exhorted to appoint presbyters by the same rite (1 Timothy 5:22; cf. Acts 13:3; 14:22). In Clem., “Hom.”, III, lxxii, we read of the appointment of Zachæus as bishop by the imposition of Peter’s hands. The word is used in its technical meaning by Clement of Alexandria (“Strom.”, VI, xiii, cvi; cf. “Const. Apost.”, II, viii, 36). “A priest lays on hands, but does not ordain” (cheirothetei ou cheirotonei) “Didasc. Syr.”, IV; III, 10, 11, 20; Cornelius, “Ad Fabianum” in Euseb., “Hist. Eccl.”, VI, xliii.

Grace was attached to this external sign and conferred by it. “I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, through (dia) the imposition of my hands” (2 Timothy 1:6). The context clearly shows that there is question here of a grace which enables Timothy to rightly discharge the office imposed upon him, for St. Paul continues “God hath not given us the spirit of fear: but of power, and of love, and of sobriety.” This grace is something permanent, as appears from the words “that thou stir up the grace which is in thee”; we reach the same conclusion from I Tim., iv, 14, where St. Paul says, “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with (meta) imposition of hands of the priesthood.” This text shows that when St. Paul ordained Timothy, the presbyters also laid their hands upon him, even as now the presbyters who assist at ordination lay their hands on the candidate. St. Paul here exhorts Timothy to teach and command, to be an example to all. To neglect this would be to neglect the grace which is in him. This grace therefore enables him to teach and command, to discharge his office rightly. The grace then is not a charismatic gift, but a gift of the Holy Spirit for the rightful discharge of official duties. The Sacrament of Order has ever been recognized in the Church as such. This is attested by the belief in a special priesthood (cf. St. John Chrys., “De sacerdotio”; St. Greg. of Nyss., “Oratio in baptism. Christi”), which requires a special ordination. St. Augustine, speaking about baptism and order, says, “Each is a sacrament, and each is given by a certain consecration, . . .If both are sacraments, which no one doubts, how is the one not lost (by defection from the Church) and the other lost?” (Contra. Epist. Parmen., ii, 28-30). The Council of Trent says, “Whereas, by the testimony of Scripture, by Apostolic tradition, and by the unanimous consent of the Fathers, it is clear that grace is conferred by sacred ordination, which is performed by words and outward signs, no one ought to doubt that Order is truly and properly one of the Seven Sacraments of Holy Church” (Sess. XXIII, c. iii, can. 3).

misplaced the link
 
But the idea has been postulated that Adventists dislike Catholics THEMSELVES, and do not consider them even Christian, which is ridiculous! Those are the “rumors” I am trying to dispell.
That I think we understand. In American history there has been pleny of anti-Catholic hate perpetrated by protestants, but I would not say that such actions and such are the actual doctrines of their respective churches. We get that.
But for my own PERSONAL thoughts, I CAN dislike a system and not its constituents.
Yes you can. Likewise I think you will understand why we don’t like your system.
I think we have core issues in common, and these we can discuss, yes?
Well, we say that you are Christian and I think you perform a valid baptism (w/ the Trinitarian formula).

You think Christ is your Savior, so do we.

We think the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, so do you.

However, in each one of these, concepts can be radically different.
 
40.png
Mike_D30:
And to us you guys are just one more of the thousands of Protestant denominations that resulted from Luther’s Apostasy. Wouldn’t this line you posted:

“When Luthers followers heard Huss’s message, they would not believe so another church was born and so on.”

Describe your Church? All you have to do is substitute ‘Luther’s’ followers for ‘Ellen White’s’ watch.

When Ellen White’s followers heard Joseph Smith’s message, they would not believe so another church was born and so on.

It’s tough for us to even discern how you are different from the one of thousands of Protestant denominations who despise Catholicism. You guys aren’t the only game in town, it’s too tough to keep up with.
First of all, my church was not derived from Ellen White or her teachings. It was formed out of the Millerite movement. they tried unsuccessfully to determine when the 2nd coming would be. When the dissapointment was over, they went back to their Bibles and discovered that it was not just one (then current) denomination that had the truth, but that they all seemed to have a piece. So based on what they believed to be true from their studying, they pieced it together and formed the Adventist Church. Just a search for truth, a piecing together of it, and a name. Ellen White came around later to help stabilize it, which was the apostles use of the spirit in the Bible. Thats our stand.
 
40.png
ComradeAndrei:
That I think we understand. In American history there has been pleny of anti-Catholic hate perpetrated by protestants, but I would not say that such actions and such are the actual doctrines of their respective churches. We get that.

Yes you can. Likewise I think you will understand why we don’t like your system.

Well, we say that you are Christian and I think you perform a valid baptism (w/ the Trinitarian formula).

You think Christ is your Savior, so do we.

We think the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, so do you.

However, in each one of these, concepts can be radically different.
YEs, we practice baptism by immersion, Christ is the Savior, Bible is the word of God. Doctrine divides us on the particulars. But we have quite a bit to agree on and less to argue over. You understand when I use the word system, I dont even mean bishops, cardinals, etc. I’m talking people who INSTITUTED it, like Constantine. Not the everyday person.
And yes, I understand the dislike of the Adventist system as you understand it to be. Like I said, I’m not trying to discuss doctrine. Just answers to BASIC questions to dispell myths.
 
40.png
SDAgirl:
First of all, my church was not derived from Ellen White or her teachings. It was formed out of the Millerite movement. they tried unsuccessfully to determine when the 2nd coming would be. When the dissapointment was over, they went back to their Bibles and discovered that it was not just one (then current) denomination that had the truth, but that they all seemed to have a piece. So based on what they believed to be true from their studying, they pieced it together and formed the Adventist Church. Just a search for truth, a piecing together of it, and a name. Ellen White came around later to help stabilize it, which was the apostles use of the spirit in the Bible. Thats our stand.
Yes I know, but I think you got the analogy anyway. My guess is this time you guys are avoiding any *solid dates * on your end times prophecies?
 
So based on what they believed to be true from their studying, they pieced it together and formed the Adventist Church. Just a search for truth, a piecing together of it, and a name. Ellen White came around later to help stabilize it, which was the apostles use of the spirit in the Bible. Thats our stand.
That’s the problem, the Church is supposed to be the pillar and foundation of the Truth, not a “search” for the Truth. It has to be firm in this throughout everything. Putting “truths” together piecemeal doesn’t make for a more true “truth”, it just makes a conglomeration that can take its place among the other conglomerations.

Without clear succession of Authority, who is to say that E. G. White wasn’t just another American religious figure who came out of the chaos of “The Great Awakening” to found (or sustain) another sect? What I’m getting at is, there is no authority there.
 
40.png
Mike_D30:
Yes I know, but I think you got the analogy anyway. My guess is this time you guys are avoiding any *solid dates * on your end times prophecies?
Of course. You understand that the SDA church is not the millerite movement. It came OUT OF that movement. As the Bible was studied it was discovered that nobody can place an exact time on the 2nd coming. So we follow the Bible on this point.
 
“Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent.” (Manuscript Releases Volume Fourteen, page 23, paragraph 3)

:confused:
 
Doctrine divides us on the particulars.But we have quite a bit to agree on and less to argue over. You understand when I use the word system, I dont even mean bishops, cardinals, etc. I’m talking people who INSTITUTED it, like Constantine. Not the everyday person.
Well, I’ll dispell that myth. Constantine the Great didn’t have anything to do with the “institution” of the Catholic Church. He was an emperor, not a clergyman.

Yes, he wanted the Pope and the bishops to get together at the Council of Nicea in 325 but had the Church not wanted to he couldn’t do anything to force the issue. Emperors have tried to call councils for their own person gain and nothing comes from them as an emperor doesn’t have this authority. Caeseropapism is not part of Catholicism.
 
40.png
SDAgirl:
Of course. You understand that the SDA church is not the millerite movement. It came OUT OF that movement. As the Bible was studied it was discovered that nobody can place an exact time on the 2nd coming. So we follow the Bible on this point.
It came out of that movement after the movement was a clear failure, so you guys kept the bigotry against Catholicism, but abandoned the failed dates, very convienient. But what else is different from the millerites?
 
40.png
ComradeAndrei:
That’s the problem, the Church is supposed to be the pillar and foundation of the Truth, not a “search” for the Truth. It has to be firm in this throughout everything. Putting “truths” together piecemeal doesn’t make for a more true “truth”, it just makes a conglomeration that can take its place among the other conglomerations.

Without clear succession of Authority, who is to say that E. G. White wasn’t just another American religious figure who came out of the chaos of “The Great Awakening” to found (or sustain) another sect? What I’m getting at is, there is no authority there.
The church has quite a strong basis of its beliefs without ever mentioning her or her teachings. Like I said above, we use her as a study guide to different parts of the Bible. We do not venerate her. I think that an honest study of truth done prayerfully can bring positive results. A CAtholic can read the same verse 100 times and if guided by the Holy Spirit can come into a new understanding of the meaning. Same thing. We use the Bible ALONE to determine our beliefs. Thanks.
 
40.png
Mike_D30:
It came out of that movement after the movement was a clear failure, so you guys kept the bigotry against Catholicism, but abandoned the failed dates, very convienient. But what else is different from the millerites?
I am having a difficult time dealing with the sarcasm here. Read any statement I have made in ANY thread and find bigotry. Then we can speak further.
 
In post #9 you answer with “We interpet” when speaking of the bible. My question to you would be where does your (SDA) authority to interpet the bible come from?

Catholics believe that their authority came from Jesus Christ and they specifically identify where it is dirived in the bible and can follow that authority as a belief from the early church to the current day. I don’t understand where the SDA authority comes from? Can you perhaps tell me where the power to interpet scripture as the SDAs do comes from?

Thanks

Annette
 
40.png
ComradeAndrei:
Well, I’ll dispell that myth. Constantine the Great didn’t have anything to do with the “institution” of the Catholic Church. He was an emperor, not a clergyman.

Yes, he wanted the Pope and the bishops to get together at the Council of Nicea in 325 but had the Church not wanted to he couldn’t do anything to force the issue. Emperors have tried to call councils for their own person gain and nothing comes from them as an emperor doesn’t have this authority. Caeseropapism is not part of Catholicism.
That is a seperation of church and state issue that is quite relevant to the church nowdays. We just have different views. Have I ever said anything offensive to you or anyone? I’m trying to show you that Adventists are not necessarily as you have them pegged. Thats all. No NEGATIVITY here.
 
40.png
SDAgirl:
I am having a difficult time dealing with the sarcasm here. Read any statement I have made in ANY thread and find bigotry. Then we can speak further.
I’m talking about your Church kept the bigotry against Catholics but ditched the dates as they were wrong. Again we are “seperating” Churches from the people remember? (Not so easy is it?)

To us, Catholics have been railed against by SDA’s as the whore of babylon, pagans, and the Pope the anti-Christ for 100+ years. That is incredibly offensive, the entire point of you coming here is to say that no matter how offensive your CHURCHES attitudes are to OUR Church, we are to look past it. Well I would just ask the same courtesy of you, I think your Church is biggoted to Catholics, and clearly anti-catholic. Good thing we aren’t getting caught up in any of that nastiness though.
 
The church has quite a strong basis of its beliefs without ever mentioning her or her teachings. Like I said above, we use her as a study guide to different parts of the Bible. We do not venerate her.
I realize that. However, where is the authority that what she writes is worth using as a study guide for the Bible?
A CAtholic can read the same verse 100 times and if guided by the Holy Spirit can come into a new understanding of the meaning.
Yes, as long as they are in line with the Church on there understanding. That’s happened to me, and I’m sure most folks around here would probably say that its happened to them. They could also read that verse 100 times and fall into heresy if they do not have proper guidance.
Same thing.
Not the same thing. All private revelation is subject to official doctrine and dogma. People come up with all sorts of silly things otherwise.
We use the Bible ALONE to determine our beliefs.
There’s another beef we have, so does every other protestant. They are just as convinced that they have the ultimate Bible truth from the Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura). That causes unending debate and contention about this verse or that, the meaning of that word in Greek and this one in Hebrew, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

The Bible doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura, that’s the problem.
 
40.png
amills:
In post #9 you answer with “We interpet” when speaking of the bible. My question to you would be where does your (SDA) authority to interpet the bible come from?

Catholics believe that their authority came from Jesus Christ and they specifically identify where it is dirived in the bible and can follow that authority as a belief from the early church to the current day. I don’t understand where the SDA authority comes from? Can you perhaps tell me where the power to interpet scripture as the SDAs do comes from?

We believe that the Bible is an open book. That is does not need ANY specific church to interpret it. Everyone has their view. I’m just explaining ours a little bit. Not in an attempt to cause bickering, but to let you know that we are alike in some ways. Anyways, we believe that with the help of the holy spirit, ANYONE can understand Gods precepts. They are not grievous.
 
40.png
Mike_D30:
I’m talking about your Church kept the bigotry against Catholics but ditched the dates as they were wrong. Again we are “seperating” Churches from the people remember?

To us, Catholics have been railed against by SDA’s as the whore of babylon, pagans, and the Pope the anti-Christ for 100+ years. That is incredibly offensive, the entire point of you coming here is to say that no matter how offensive your CHURCHES attitudes are to OUR Church, we are to look past it. Well I would just ask the same courtesy of you, I think your Church is biggoted to Catholics, and clearly anti-catholic. Good thing we are getting caught up in any of that nastiness though.
And my statement was that there is no bigotry. There are interpretations. If someone says they don’t like American politics, so you then take that statement personally? Or do you understand it to mean the people who are INVOLVED with the politics? This is the seperation I am making.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top