Defense of Doug Batchelor/Adventist Misconceptions

[Matchbook]

As I was searching for some information on Google, I came across a very extensive thread called Doug Batchelor: His Catholic Church attacks. As a 7th-Day Adventist, some of the content disappointed me, understandably. I did not read the entirety of the thread, but I read many posts, and found that there were misconceptions abounding not only about Doug Batchelor, but the 7th-Day Adventist church.

I feel it is fair for me to write regarding this, not with an agenda, but for clarification, that, if any of you so choose, you can search for yourselves for the doctrinal or historical edification. I am here to clarify, not preach. I read the forum rules, and I see that long posts are frowned upon. I shall try my best to keep it succinct, but because a lot was discussed, there is much to clarify.

Clarification #1: "The Adventist Church is a cult! (do not listen to them)

This is something I have heard very many times, and I understand how some perspectives could arrive at that conclusion. There ARE some “extremist” Adventist websites out there, and possibly some of the evangelists as well, but that I can’t substantiate. No church denomination is perfect, remember; they all consist of people, sinners. I don’t favor the threatening, or condemning approach, nor does the Adventist church as a whole.

If you were to visit a 7th-Day Adventist church and attend some of its services, you would see that there is no resemblance to a cult among the fellowship, nor among the leaders (provided it is a sound, Bible-based Church). Adventist churches rarely RARELY give sermons involving the Catholic church. The instances involving the Catholic Church are typically in Adventist Evangelism series involving prophecy (Doug Batchelor), or in last-day lecture series that are conducted on occasion.

Clarification #2: “The Adventist Church condemns/hates/puts down Catholics”

This is not true. If you listen to or watch a prophecy sermon involving the Catholic church, for example, the 1260 day prophecy, you will find that in no way does our church EVER condemn the Catholic people or modern Catholic Churches. What is always addressed are the historical actions of the Papacy and its leaders according to what our church considers an accurate fulfilling of prophecy, which I am not asking you to agree with. There is the fact that the Papacy did slay a great number of Christians/Protestants, something John Paul II apologized for many years ago on behalf of the church, which was admirable. I don’t believe that any of you here would currently advocate some of the drastic measures the Papacy took in early centuries against non-Catholic Christians. It’s simply part of history. Therefore we (as a church) do not dislike Catholics, and many of us attend Catholic services and are moved by them. Members of all Christ-centered churches can be Spirit-filled!

Clarification #3: “Doug Batchelor is a liar” “DB avoids mentioning affiliation with SDA church” “DB doctors/edits quotes!!”

I respect Doug Batchelor, but still see him as fallible along with anyone. But I have no doubt he is filled with the Holy Spirit. Many of those in the aforementioned thread spoke of him with ignorance, making it clear they had seen only 1, 2, or a portion of his sermons. Someone mentioned he never uses quotes from the Catechism; he does (Prophecy Code series). He always gives references for historical quotes, including ones written by Christian/Papal/Church historians, and not only suggests people check them out for themselves, but he says it is important to. He’s not hiding anything. If one becomes angry because of his teachings against the actions of the Papacy, it is not right to insult him without checking out the information he gives, from famous and respected writers/authors/historians of your own church!
The most important thing is that everything he teaches is Scripturally-based, always. When covering a topic or prophecy, he doesn’t grab one text out of context and run with it, he usually offers several parallel verses from the Old and New Testament to bridge and support the connections, and is very thorough in covering contextual verses surrounding the prophecy topic. He has at many times sincerely invited those in his audience to stop him if he was in error, or preaching something out of Scriptural context. He has for years invited people to show him a verse in the Bible even suggesting a change from Sabbath worship to Sunday. No one has come forth with one.
Doug Batchelor is not ashamed of Adventism. He is a pastor of an SDA church in California. When he gives Prophecy evangelistic meetings, it is true that he is not quick to mention affiliation with Adventism. Why? Because many would close their ears and leave, because of the propogandized idea of the SDA church being a deceiving cult, and he knows this. If you as a Catholic showed up to an evangelistic meeting and the person speaking said, “Hello, welcome to our evangelistic series, my name is Craig Brown from the Seventh-Day Adventist church. Today I want to show you what our church believes about…”. Would you put up your defense immediately, be cynical, leave?

Some of the statements and assumptions made about Doug Batchelor in that thread ranged from ignorant to even unconscionable. To give but one quote in the thread “And you won’t refute his assumptions easily since he already assumes that anyone associated in any way with Roman Catholicism is likely to be in some way ‘demonised’ and so thoroughly deluded as to be dismissed out of hand.” …First off, he has a background in the Catholic Church, he often attends Catholic Churches, is friends with Catholic pastors despite doctrinal disagreements. Why make these assumptions?

 

[Matchbook]

Closing: There has been much animosity toward our church, our people, our churches, our doctrines, and I believe more so than our church has directed toward the Catholic Church! As we only characterize the role of the Papal Church in the role of prophecy, we often go out of our way to avoid alienating the people in the church today. I believe Satan can be a force of evil in EVERY SINGLE CHURCH, including the SDA church. I’ve seen my fair share of corruption, arrogance, and ignorance in my church. Examples could be cited for my church, other denominations, other religions, and isn’t it sensible to accept that the Catholic Church is not perfect, only Christ is perfect? Our belief is that there will rise up leaders in the Roman Catholic Church in the final days that will bring about non-Biblical laws and doctrines, and aid in bringing about the time of the end. We are NOT talking about YOU, the people. I wish the true blessings of Christ to all who read this, and that you may understand that I purport myself no better. I do not demand you believe the teachings of the SDA church, but if you choose to insult it or criticize it, first read our 28 fundamental beliefs, see if they correspond to the Bible, and then come to your conclusion based on the will of the Holy Spirit, not my will. Thank you for reading this, and I sincerely apologize for the length of this.

 

[Matchbook]

Allow me to correct what I said about Doug Batchelor being slow to mention his SDA affiliation in his evangelistic meetings. I watched one of them (Prophecy Code) last night, and he mentioned being SDA at least once.

Note: I perceive there may be a lack of interest or response for what I’ve written, but I am interested in reading about what any of you have to think regarding the subject, and would be glad to give my responses where I am able to do so. But if the thread dies, this will be my final bump. God’s blessings to all of you.

 

[mark_a]

Note: I perceive there may be a lack of interest or response for what I’ve written, but I am interested in reading about what any of you have to think regarding the subject, and would be glad to give my responses where I am able to do so. But if the thread dies, this will be my final bump. God’s blessings to all of you.

I personally get a little defensive when folks attribute the sins of people in the Catholic Church to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Clarification #1: "The Adventist Church is a cult! (do not listen to them)

Just as the Church Christ founded has four marks–one, holy, catholic, and apostolic–so does the SDA have the four marks of a cult:

1. Defective Christology–teaching that Jesus was the Archangel Micael.
2. Authoritative extra-bibllcal revelations: the ravings of Ellen Gould White (whose name adds up to 666) get called “spirit of prophecy”.
3. Radical sectarianism: the myth about the “remnant church” which is opposed to Christ’s promise that His Church would abide on earth forever.
4. Doctrinal novelties: the “heavenly sancturary” and “investigative judgement”.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

As I was searching for some information on Google, I came across a very extensive thread called Doug Batchelor: His Catholic Church attacks. As a 7th-Day Adventist, some of the content disappointed me, understandably. I did not read the entirety of the thread, but I read many posts, and found that there were misconceptions abounding not only about Doug Batchelor, but the 7th-Day Adventist church.

I feel it is fair for me to write regarding this, not with an agenda, but for clarification, that, if any of you so choose, you can search for yourselves for the doctrinal or historical edification. I am here to clarify, not preach. I read the forum rules, and I see that long posts are frowned upon. I shall try my best to keep it succinct, but because a lot was discussed, there is much to clarify.

Clarification #1: "The Adventist Church is a cult! (do not listen to them)

This is something I have heard very many times, and I understand how some perspectives could arrive at that conclusion. There ARE some “extremist” Adventist websites out there, and possibly some of the evangelists as well, but that I can’t substantiate. No church denomination is perfect, remember; they all consist of people, sinners. I don’t favor the threatening, or condemning approach, nor does the Adventist church as a whole.

If you were to visit a 7th-Day Adventist church and attend some of its services, you would see that there is no resemblance to a cult among the fellowship, nor among the leaders (provided it is a sound, Bible-based Church). Adventist churches rarely RARELY give sermons involving the Catholic church. The instances involving the Catholic Church are typically in Adventist Evangelism series involving prophecy (Doug Batchelor), or in last-day lecture series that are conducted on occasion.

Clarification #2: “The Adventist Church condemns/hates/puts down Catholics”

This is not true. If you listen to or watch a prophecy sermon involving the Catholic church, for example, the 1260 day prophecy, you will find that in no way does our church EVER condemn the Catholic people or modern Catholic Churches. What is always addressed are the historical actions of the Papacy and its leaders according to what our church considers an accurate fulfilling of prophecy, which I am not asking you to agree with. There is the fact that the Papacy did slay a great number of Christians/Protestants, something John Paul II apologized for many years ago on behalf of the church, which was admirable. I don’t believe that any of you here would currently advocate some of the drastic measures the Papacy took in early centuries against non-Catholic Christians. It’s simply part of history. Therefore we (as a church) do not dislike Catholics, and many of us attend Catholic services and are moved by them. Members of all Christ-centered churches can be Spirit-filled!

Understood ​

However, what you say about SDA attitudes to Catholics does not match what I (& plenty of others for that matter) have found. I wish it did. I don’t wish to exaggerate, but some of the exchanges I’ve come come across on the Net do suggest very strongly that the CC is regarded as evil by some SDAs at least. There are sites sponsored by SDAs that can by no stretch of the imagination be regarded as anything but very negative indeed.

OTOH, there is apt to be a disconnection between Catholic attitudes as they are, &, as they should be. Maybe that’s why some SDAs think of the Pope as the Beast from the Sea of Revelation 13, even if this is not the attitude of the SDA movement as such. While this is possible, & is supported by anecdotal evidence such as the participation of SDAism in working for Christian Unity (in the UK at least), I’m not sure I’m convinced. This kind of thing is all good fun:

• I would like to ask the assistance of those reading this article if they have done research, or know of someone who has regarding all the wars in the last 1470 years. If so, please send me the research. Why? If I was a betting man, and I am not of course, I would bet the whole kit and caboodle that you will find the overwhelming majority of all the wars since Justinian ascended the papal chair in 538AD, that the Roman church has been directly involved in starting them.

• but it does not inspire confidence . Justinian the Great was many things, but he was never Pope. If he had been, the history of the Papacy, of Italy, & of Byzantium would have been rather different.

And SDA attempts to pin Beast-from-the-sea-hood on the Papacy by playing around with Rev. 13.18 don’t exactly suggest warm brotherly affection for us Catholics.

As to Doug Batchelor - I watched his “Richest Caveman” video, & it was impressive. Apart from that, I know nothing about him.

Some of the statements and assumptions made about Doug Batchelor in that thread ranged from ignorant to even unconscionable. To give but one quote in the thread “And you won’t refute his assumptions easily since he already assumes that anyone associated in any way with Roman Catholicism is likely to be in some way ‘demonised’ and so thoroughly deluded as to be dismissed out of hand.” …First off, he has a background in the Catholic Church, he often attends Catholic Churches, is friends with Catholic pastors despite doctrinal disagreements. Why make these assumptions?

FWIW, having a background in the CC is in itself no guarantee of friendly feeling towards it. Plenty of former Catholics have attacked it with enormous energy.​

If he is on good terms with Catholics, good for him: but not all former Catholics are so friendly. It’s a religion which tends to arouse very strong passions.

 

[Matchbook]

Gottle of Geer,

I am stretched for time at the moment, and don’t have time to properly reply to yours or others responses in full at the moment (keeping my eye on the Washington state caucuses) but I thought I’d address one snipet of what you said to suffice for now, and I will reply to the other parts later.

What you may have encountered on the ‘net as far as people and SDA sites that direct negativity toward Catholic churches is not an accurate reflection of majority Adventists’ views toward Catholics. Why do I think this? The sites you see that are apparently supported by the Adventist church…do they say that they are supported and endorsed by the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists? I would suppose not. There are a lot of sites by people who say they are SDA’s but so very poorly reflect the attitude of not only SDA’s but Christians, too. When too much emphasis is put on anti-Papal attitudes, it detracts from the focus of Christ. That is not the focus of our church. There may be some SDA extremist leaders or members who create elaborate anti-Catholic sites, some of which I’ve seen. That’s why the internet can be such a problem for religious animosity. It’s not the “mainstream” Adventist sites that are given legitimate acknowledgement…but it seems that the ones of which you speak of are cherry-picked to use against the SDA church. I don’t blame you; it’s out there, and it’s ugly.

More elaboration later. And if it’s appropriate, I will add a bit of clarity to the beast coming out of the waters, because the one of you that mentioned it misrepresented what we interpret it to be (not the Pope). I fully intend to keep our discussion friendly, non-contentious, open, and honest. I appreciate your responses so far.

God Bless

 

[adventistnomore]

Matchbook,

I appreciate your post; it was honest, polite, and well-reasoned.

In it, you stated:

“There is the fact that the Papacy did slay a great number of Christians/Protestants, something John Paul II apologized for many years ago on behalf of the church, which was admirable.”

If the Church has truly apologized/repented for its past record of persecutions, why do Adventists continue to print literature that claims: “All that [the Catholic Church] has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented?” (Ellen White, Great Controversy, p. 564)

This misrepresents us; honestly, is this not “bearing false witness against your neighbor?”

 

[Matchbook]

bpbasilphx,

Your quote: "Just as the Church Christ founded has four marks–one, holy, catholic, and apostolic–so does the SDA have the four marks of a cult:

1. Defective Christology–teaching that Jesus was the Archangel Micael."

My response: Well, let’s look succinctly at the attributes of Christ, and the attributes of Michael the Archangel, and see if the match is reasonable. If there is even a small defect in the match, it’s like trying to jam a slightly off puzzle piece into our puzzle, because it seems so close, so we think it must fit… have we all done that? (It’s especially easy to want to do that with the blue sky portions of puzzles, heh)

Here is a verse on Michael: (KJV)

Daniel 12
1And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

2And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

…From my knowledge of Scripture, it is only Christ who stands for us, to deliver us. Jesus is also called a prince elsewhere (Prince of Peace). The indication here, is that as Michael stands up, those who sleep in the dust of the earth are brought to life. Cannot only Christ resurrect?

Jude 1:9 (KJV)

9Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

…Are there any examples in the Bible where anyone other than Christ intercesses on our behalf, in this case for the body of Moses?

Daniel 10:21 (KJV)

21But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.

…No angel is ever referred to as “our prince” but Christ alone, isn’t this true?

2. Authoritative extra-bibllcal revelations: the ravings of Ellen Gould White (whose name adds up to 666) get called “spirit of prophecy”.

Joel 2 (KJV)

28And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

29And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

30And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.

…Continued…

 

[Matchbook]

…The Bible makes it very clear that there will be prophets and those gifted with prophecy in the latter days, of both genders. We are to test those prophets by the Word of God. If they add any doctrine or element to Scripture, they are a false prophet. Ellen White’s visions and writings have never contradicted Scripture, and if any of you have some of which to offer, please present it. She merely expounds on Scripture and Prophecy, and presents interpretations, which she asks that we test by the Scripture.

If you find anti-White sites online, it’s easy to think she’s a liar or false prophet, but those sites are deceptive in how they cut out portions of her writings to say her visions were actually plagairized writings… but they only pull portions out of context. Yes, she used parts of other religious books in her writings, but she never claims those words were in her visions. On those “sites” you’ll see them say something like “Here is the damning evidence! Here Ellen White says she is being shown a vision (shows snippet of her quote). Now later on that page here you can see she is copying the words from (such-and-such) book!”
…Of course you never see the full writings in context. To denounce her gift of prophecy by those deceptive sites is unwise. If one wishes to denounce her, compare her writings side by side with Scripture. In her humility she many times asks that her books not be shown or taught to new Christians until they are first thoroughly taught the Bible so that they may have a firm foundation. Please give her the Biblical test, if any test at all.

As far as her name adding up to 666, all I can say is that you are falling into the grip of superstition now. Observe the very text on the subject:

Revelation 13:8 (KJV)
18Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Does Ellen White fit the profile of the beast? Is she a man? No. The reason Adventists calculate the number of the Pope (a man) is because our understanding is that the Pope is the horn on the beast, matching in accordance with all characteristics given, as our Scriptural interpretation shows (granted by the Holy Spirit, I pray). So if the Bible asks us to count the number, that is a direct demand for a concrete calculation. How do we know what kind of calculation? Well, if the beast is the Roman Church, would we not use their numerical system (much like how we must use 360 day Jewish years when reading prophecy, not our own 365 day years), and see if there is a man who’s number can then be calculated? If we are using the Roman numerical system, then we also must accordingly use the Roman title, which is Vicarius Filii Dei…adding it up, as many of you know, it is 666. Some doubt that is a valid title. Please research the history of the title to verify it is verily true. If you wish not to, I can try to find valid confirmation myself to offer you. But this is not my aim, convincing you of my doctrine. I am refuting the errant application of 666 to Ellen White, and showing where it is erroneous.

3. Radical sectarianism: the myth about the “remnant church” which is opposed to Christ’s promise that His Church would abide on earth forever.

It’s not radical, nor is it sectarianism, though I wouldn’t doubt some Adventists have taken it that far. Here is a response straight from our fundamental beliefs:

“13. Remnant and Its Mission:
The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ, but in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; it coincides with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a work of repentance and reform on earth. Every believer is called to have a personal part in this worldwide witness. (Rev. 12:17; 14:6-12; 18:1-4; 2 Cor. 5:10; Jude 3, 14; 1 Peter 1:16-19; 2 Peter 3:10-14; Rev. 21:1-14.)”

…Please understand that this remnant “church” does not represent a denomination, and we do not think that either. We simply believe our denomination has been given a unique responsibility to spread the Word of the truth of keeping God’s commandments here in the last days. Ellen White, the prophetess who helped found our church is one of our reasons for believing this; fundamental belief 18:

“18. The Gift of Prophecy:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White… (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)”

…I already went over Ellen White, so agree or disagree, that is the explanation of the remnant church. We count ourselves no more special or important than other denominations, since we believe there will be members of the remnant church in many denominations and religions, including Catholics, I must add (since many think we are damning them).

…Continued…

 

[Matchbook]

4. Doctrinal novelties: the “heavenly sancturary” and “investigative judgement”.

I don’t have enough knowledge on those doctrines to give support for or against them. But it spurs me to look into it more. I’ll be reading Daniel soon. There are no churches that are doctrinally perfect, for we are people trying to make interpretations, and sometimes we become too caught up in finding answers, that we stifle the Holy Spirit. The SDA church is not immune. That said, I do not discount the validity of the Heavenly Sanctuary and Investigative Judgment doctrines, though they have brought up controversy in our own church. The important thing is, our salvation is NOT dependant upon our understanding of that doctrine. We can only pray for purest clarity of the Scripture for each of our hearts.

If you consider these to be doctrinal novelties, that of a cult, please explain how they are devices to deceive or mislead. Our understanding of these doctrines has changed and has been revised and disputed (unfortunately with too much contentiousness) for many years. So is the nature of man.

Adventistnomore, my response to you:

*Your quote: "If the Church has truly apologized/repented for its past record of persecutions, why do Adventists continue to print literature that claims: “All that [the Catholic Church] has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right; and would she not repeat the same acts, should the opportunity be presented?” (Ellen White, Great Controversy, p. 564)

This misrepresents us; honestly, is this not “bearing false witness against your neighbor?”*

Adventistnomore, there are many Adventists who think/thought that John Paul II was a sincerely good man with no actual ill-intent. Our belief in the beast/papacy with the mortal wound given in 1798 (dethroning of the pope/end of papal rule) and then the healing of the wound is shown in the huge regrowth of the Catholic Church, filled with many godly people. But our belief is that the Catholic/Papal “system” is what will again bring upon persecution on earth, through an enactment of a Sunday Law observance. Think that sounds crazy? Dig up the dozens and dozens of articles written by Catholic Church leaders and members of other churches (Pat Robertson) that have been suggesting a mandatory Sunday observance. John Paul II mentioned such in one of his writings several years ago. Adventists have been proclaiming that very such law for very long, and it is already in the works. How it will come about, is a mystery to be revealed. Unconstitutional? Yes. But hasn’t even the Bush administration been able to fennagle (sp?) the constitution for purposes of security?..

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle of Geer,

I am stretched for time at the moment, and don’t have time to properly reply to yours or others responses in full at the moment (keeping my eye on the Washington state caucuses) but I thought I’d address one snipet of what you said to suffice for now, and I will reply to the other parts later.

What you may have encountered on the ‘net as far as people and SDA sites that direct negativity toward Catholic churches is not an accurate reflection of majority Adventists’ views toward Catholics. Why do I think this? The sites you see that are apparently supported by the Adventist church…do they say that they are supported and endorsed by the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists? I would suppose not.

Not that I remember - you can take that as a tentative “no”.​

There are a lot of sites by people who say they are SDA’s but so very poorly reflect the attitude of not only SDA’s but Christians, too. When too much emphasis is put on anti-Papal attitudes, it detracts from the focus of Christ.

Agreed.​

That is not the focus of our church. There may be some SDA extremist leaders or members who create elaborate anti-Catholic sites, some of which I’ve seen. That’s why the internet can be such a problem for religious animosity. It’s not the “mainstream” Adventist sites that are given legitimate acknowledgement…but it seems that the ones of which you speak of are cherry-picked to use against the SDA church. I don’t blame you; it’s out there, and it’s ugly.

More elaboration later. And if it’s appropriate, I will add a bit of clarity to the beast coming out of the waters, because the one of you that mentioned it misrepresented what we interpret it to be (not the Pope). I fully intend to keep our discussion friendly, non-contentious, open, and honest. I appreciate your responses so far.

God Bless

Thanks for the reply. ​

I haven’t cherry-picked; that would be deceitful & unfair. I have been to SDA sites, & to sites with SDA posters: & the animosity to Catholicism (however understandable) has been almost universal. I (vaguely) remember one official-looking one that was not.

That is only my experience, of course - others may have a happier picture to give you. I hope so.

 

[adventistnomore]

Matchbook,

I’m sorry, but you didn’t answer my question.

If, as you agree, the Catholic Church has apologized for her past actions, why do Adventist print material that claims, “all that [the Catholic Church] has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right.”

This doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[LSK]

My response: Well, let’s look succinctly at the attributes of Christ, and the attributes of Michael the Archangel, and see if the match is reasonable. If there is even a small defect in the match, it’s like trying to jam a slightly off puzzle piece into our puzzle, because it seems so close, so we think it must fit… have we all done that? (It’s especially easy to want to do that with the blue sky portions of puzzles, heh)

Here is the deal - anyone, church, cult, group or otherwise - that makes a claim that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, is the SAME as a mere ANGEL is simply wrong. You may be polite, you may have lots of love in your heart…but you are wrong.

similarities between the Creator and His Creatures? Well of course…but just as human creatures are not God, Angels are not God and to pretend that some how the Holy Scripture proves that kind of lie is to lead people into evil.

Thank you for letting me share.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Here is the deal - anyone, church, cult, group or otherwise - that makes a claim that Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, is the SAME as a mere ANGEL is simply wrong. You may be polite, you may have lots of love in your heart…but you are wrong.

And I may add to LSK:

Has NEVER read Letter to the Hebrews where the writer goes to great lengths to deny Jesus as being equal to or less than the angels of God.

Robert

 

[Debra_C]

Examples could be cited for my church, other denominations, other religions, and isn’t it sensible to accept that the Catholic Church is not perfect, only Christ is perfect? Our belief is that there will rise up leaders in the Roman Catholic Church in the final days that will bring about non-Biblical laws and doctrines, and aid in bringing about the time of the end.

It is certainly true that among men, Christ alone is perfect. Therefore, it is a safe assumption that all of the men (and women, too, if you happen to be one of those inclusive language adherents) in the Church have made errors of one form or another. If those men happen to be in leadership roles, they may potentially lead a number of others to follow them in their errors. However, Christ Himself promised us in the Gospel that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church which he founded with Peter as its head. We take Him at His word. Therefore, I don’t see how it is possible that the Church as a whole (not individual men or groups of men within it, but the WHOLE CHURCH) could be the cause of ushering such sin & heresy into the world that it would bring about the end of the world as prophesied in the Book of Revelation, nor shall it fall under the leadership of “the Antichrist.”

I place the word Antichrist in quotations because the Catholic understanding of this word is not generally that there will rise up a particular person in history that shall be the Antichrist, but rather that the world possesses to varying degrees throughout history a spirit of Antichrist which must constantly be battled against. This understanding is usually quite different than that of the various Protestant or prophetic churches out there.

Further, to claim that your church alone has accurately interpreted the Book of Revelation and that the Catholic Church (or, as I have often heard it, more specifically the Pope) is the Antichrist is inherently anti-Catholic. There is no other reasonable description for such a statement or belief, regardless of how politely it is stated.

We are NOT talking about YOU, the people. I wish the true blessings of Christ to all who read this, and that you may understand that I purport myself no better. I do not demand you believe the teachings of the SDA church, but if you choose to insult it or criticize it, first read our 28 fundamental beliefs, see if they correspond to the Bible, and then come to your conclusion based on the will of the Holy Spirit, not my will. Thank you for reading this, and I sincerely apologize for the length of this.

If you are denigrating my faith, which is generally defined largely by my steadfast membership in the Catholic Church, then you are denigrating me. My life is centered on Christ and the teachings of the Church which he founded. To say that my Church is the anti-Christ is therefore to call my faith, even my entire life, a lie. I don’t see how I can fail to take that personally.

As for my lack of faith in SDA teachings it largely boils down to this:

Anytime I find a man who proclaims himself a purveyor of truth, a prophet, or otherwise to have a personal inside line to God or a more perfect understanding of the Gospel, I start by looking at both his teachings and the results (fruits) of them in light of the Scriptures. When I find drastic error, especially from the infancy of his teachings, I generally conclude that all or most of his teachings are thereby completely moot. In the case of the founder of the SDA church, I find that the attempted prediction of precise dates (he & his immediate followers did this more than once) for the 2nd coming of Christ, which Christ Himself said was impossible for any man to predict, that all came to pass without the second coming occuring, more than qualifies. Therefore, I have never seen any need to investigate further.

In the interest of keeping this from growing to multiple posts I’ll leave off. But just as you rail against misunderstandings and misinterpretations of your faith, I would suggest to you that the SDA church’s many teachings in regard to the Catholic faith are based on gross misunderstandings of the faith, not to mention a Bible translation that uses archaic languange designed to be more poetic than faithful to the orignial meaning that is missing seven books of the Old Testament.

And BTW–I’ve alwyas wondered abpout this one thing. Just what is it that Protestants don’t get about the intercession of the Saints anyway? I cannot think of a more unreasonable argument. Do you not ask your freinds and extended family members here on Earth to pray for you when times are hard? Then why NOT those who already stand in the presence of the Almighty in heaven?

 

[Matchbook]

Matchbook,

I’m sorry, but you didn’t answer my question.

If, as you agree, the Catholic Church has apologized for her past actions, why do Adventist print material that claims, “all that [the Catholic Church] has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right.”

This doesn’t make sense to me.

Adventistnomore,

What makes little sense to me is why you are making a quote from a book “The Great Controversy” by Ellen White, that was written several decades ago, before any formal apology by the Pope. While the apology made is highly respectable, it doesn’t mean such a thing wouldn’t or couldn’t happen again.

(responses for others’ comments later)

And Adventistnomore, if this still does not satiate the entirety of your question, please define further, so I can answer in full, but I hope this answers your question.

 

[Matchbook]

However, Christ Himself promised us in the Gospel that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church which he founded with Peter as its head. We take Him at His word. Therefore, I don’t see how it is possible that the Church as a whole (not individual men or groups of men within it, but the WHOLE CHURCH) could be the cause of ushering such sin & heresy into the world that it would bring about the end of the world as prophesied in the Book of Revelation, nor shall it fall under the leadership of “the Antichrist.”

Debra C, I only have time now to answer the first part of your post, and I still have other posts to respond to, so I ask for the patience of you all, because it takes time to answer these responses.

The actual verses:

Matthew 16: 18-19 (KJV)

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

…Now when Jesus says he will build his church upon Peter, the rock, this is true. For it was when Peter went into his trance and was revealed the meaning of his vision, that Peter announced the salvation given unto the Gentiles, and began to preach therefore! There the Christian church began, as shown in the following chapter:

Acts 11:25-26

25Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

This is when the Christian church began, not the Catholic Church. To find out when Catholicism came about, how, and why, there are historical documents to explain it.

Now, did Jesus give actual tangible “keys” to Peter, for the Kingdom of Heaven? Or was it used metaphorically, as explained in the rest of the verse? (As an interesting side note, this verse is how the comedic drawings of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, letting people in, or turning people away started.)

Verse 19 once again:

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This prophetic statement by Christ was fulfilled when Peter brought Tabitha/Dorcas back from the dead. He “loosed” the binds of death on her as Christ promised he could do (through power given by the Spirit). Could he also bind things on earth? Yes. He caused the death of Ananias and Sapphira for their deceptions against the Spirit of God. God gave him the ability to do such a thing.

To give Peter some sort of vaulted position because of these verses makes little sense, other than to give him ultimately due respect for the works Christ did through him in showing salvation to the Gentiles and building the church. Something interesting…do any of you know about the statue of St. Peter in the Vatican Museum that many people kiss the feet of? That very statue was once in the Pantheon, and was the god Jupiter (notice the sun wheel above his head) until moved to help adopt some of the Pagan statues into the church to bring about a unity between Pagans and Christians. Now I am not using this to insult. My SDA church was formed by some boo-boos… the Millerites who tried to set dates for Christ’s second coming in 1843 and 1844. For both of our churches, good intentions gone wrong.

If there are any doubts on the statue once being Jupiter, the sun god, I will search for the historical references, which are not too easy to find (at least valid ones) by googling. Otherwise, perhaps those who question it can find it themselves. Either way, I’m willing when I have time.

Again, bear with me in my delayed responses. I’m basically answering in order of how much time it will take for each topic. So those who have asked earlier questions or made comments, I will get to those as I can.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

The actual verses:

Matthew 16: 18-19 (KJV)

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

…Now when Jesus says he will build his church upon Peter, the rock, this is true. For it was when Peter went into his trance and was revealed the meaning of his vision, that Peter announced the salvation given unto the Gentiles, and began to preach therefore! There the Christian church began, as shown in the following chapter:

Matchbook?

**Do you ACTUALLY read the Bible or are you repeating something someone told you??
**
St Peter “went into his trance and was revealed the meaning of his vision”

What kind of nonsense is this??

St Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, not St Peter.

Are you for real???

Robert

 

[MarysRoses]

If there are any doubts on the statue once being Jupiter, the sun god, I will search for the historical references, which are not too easy to find (at least valid ones) by googling. Otherwise, perhaps those who question it can find it themselves. Either way, I’m willing when I have time.

I’ll be utterly facinated to see what you come up with on this.

If you do bother googling, you will find that the statements that the Statue of ST. Peter is actually Jupiter are all over the place. If you look closer, you will see they are invariably on anti-catholic websites.

If you do bother looking it up in works of art history you will find the following interesting tidbits:

The statue is not classical in style or workmanship. It is stiffer in pose and of poorer quality - suggesting an origin after the classical period.

The hands and head are integral to the statue, not added later. Statues of Jupiter were not usually cast holding keys.

Of course, it is not signed and dated so people can spin whatever theories they like.

One problem I have with little jabs like this is that it brings to mind this - what is the point of the person posting them?

Even if the statue had its beginnings in pagan Rome (highly doubtful) it represents Peter, not Jupiter, to the people. Or are you suggesting it has some power of itself? People are not venerating a chunk of bronze (yes, it is a bronze statue, one site claiming it was Jupiter was SO poorly researched it said the statue was marble!)

I used to be Seventh-day Adventist. I have sat through years and years of Sabbath morning sermons, sabbath school lessons and prophecy seminars. I went to an Adventist Academy in high school and finally left the SDA church when I was a senior at Southwestern Adventist University in Texas.

I can say from personal experience: I have heard many very pointed and vicious attacks on the Catholic church from the SDA pulpit, from the sabbath school quarterlies and teachers, and from evangelists presenting seminars. While I have been Catholic for many years now, I still about once a year visit an Adventist Church because I have Adventist family members. Last time was Mother’s day 2007. The pastor was fairly new, and after a sermon on the privilege of being a member of the “Remant Church” he told the congregation that evangelism would be a challenge because the area was “too Catholic”. He went on to describe how supposedly Catholics were locked into ignorance by fear and legalism and needed to hear the “Adventist message”. Hm… sound familiar?

Another interesting thing popped out at me from your posts… You seem to want to distance yourself from the book “The Great Controversy”. You dismiss as being old and not representative of Adventism today. I found that interesting because Adventist theology is cast against the idea that a controversy exists between God and Satan and that the world is a stage with the entire universe is watching to see whether Satan is right, or whether God will be vindicated. This theme is very evident in Adventisms fundamental beliefs. Check out #8. The book you dismissed was formative in defining Adventist Doctrine. Also, its not by just anyone. It was written by Ellen G. White. Check out what fundamental belief #18 says regarding her: “As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.” The book is full of anti-catholic passages. Adventist doctrines such as the Heavenly Sanctuary and Investigative Judgement are also in the list of fundamental teachings. This is from the main, official SDA website.

adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

I would be happy to discuss Adventist doctrines with you. I would suggest you pick one to focus on and start a thread.

God Bless,
MarysRoses