Thank you for your posts, MarysRoses.
I have decided that my approach to trying to answer every question here was a little wreckless and misguided. I prayed about the matter, and I am reminded that when I came here, my purpose was to defend misconceptions and malignings of my SDA church (including one of the pastors, Doug Batchelor). But here I have found myself digging into doctrinal matters and tipping on the verge of debate, which is all too stressful. So allow me to get back to the heart of the matter, and make a quick explanation:
I want everyone to know and realize the fact that the SDA church is not perfect, nor are its doctrines and interpretations perfect. There will never be a denomination that has perfect doctrines and interpretations. I am myself a bit unsure of our interpretation of Michael the archangel, so this has prompted me to do a bit more reading on the subject. As for pastors, teachers, and professors in Adventist churches and schools; there can be a lot of difference between them on understanding prophecy, and the correct approach to doctrines stemming from prophecy.
MarysRoses, I don’t doubt the fact that Satan can use people in the SDA denomination to poison the waters and minds against the real essence of the church’s mission, and even Christ Himself. I will not purport to know exactly what your experience was like, but the professor that taught on the aspect of Mary worship in the Catholic Church obviously had a poor approach, and possibly erroneous teaching, and any fixation on something like that is not Christ-centered, or something that draws a person nearer to Christ in the end. To most people that would be a turn-off, except those who really like to rally behind anti-Catholicism in our church. But do I think that a lesson involving the true nature of Mary in Catholicism is wrong? No, not in the proper spirit and context, as long as it is not the driving point or fixation, and that the focus of the lesson is Christ Himself.
I live right next to an SDA college and church, and I have heard from all different people, interpretations, approaches, and mindsets, and I’ll tell you for a fact, not everyone agrees with each other even within this microcosm of Adventism. My main driving point is this: Though our denomination is not perfect, nor are the people within, it is the only church I have found who’s doctrines are founded solidly upon the Bible, and wherein all standards for Christian living are derived from the Bible and Christ alone. Yes, there are points within our church that are debated, revised, and still misunderstood, and they usually have to do with prophecy. But one thing remains clear, when it comes to Christ and salvation, the SDA church directs all waters to the fountain of the Word. That is why we keep the Sabbath day holy. Christ, while on earth said to keep his commandments, and the only “new commandment” He gave was that we “love one another, as I have loved you.” If there were to be a critical change in the 10 commandments, those written in stone by the hand of God, or any others added, why would he not mention it? Therefore, we find it our responsibility and our privelage to keep that commandment along with the others, as He has asked of us.
Adventistnomore, because I did not give you a full answer of defense to your comment, which was:
“Actually, Ellen White makes the argument that the “Papal Church” would never repent of its past deeds: “The papal church will never relinquish her claim to infallibility. All that she has done in her persecution of those who reject her dogmas she holds to be right” (GC 564).”
Adventistnomore, though John Paul II made an apology on behalf of the Papacy for persecutions that went on
within the church, there was never a concession of wrongdoing by the Papacy itself. Allow me to cite that information regarding his offical apology:
“The document acknowledges sins only by those acting in the name of the church. It does not acknowledge any sins by the church itself or those who have served as its popes…” CNN.com, 2000-MAR-7
*“Following the Pope’s gesture, the Church’s holiness shines even more. … It was a simple gesture, but at the same time solemn. … John Paul II wanted to give a complete, global vision, making reference to circumstances of the past, but without focusing on details out of respect for history. … The Church is not the one who has sinned, the sinners are Christians and they have done so against the Church, the Bride of Christ.” Auxiliary Archbishop Rino Fisichella of Rome, 2000-MAR-13 *
Here we see that the apology (which I assume to be made of true sincerity by John Paul II) still does not concede any wrongdoing by or from the Papal Church itself. His apology was met with strong resistance BY the Papacy:
*Pope John Paul II’s apology was opposed by many leaders of the Vatican curia. Some church leaders felt that a confession of past errors might cause many Roman Catholics to wonder whether the church is currently engaged in sinful behavior that will require some future pope to apologize for sins committed by the church leadership today … However, John Paul believed that repentance will transform the church and enable it to lead the world into a “new springtime of Christianity.” He was able to overrule the Vatican Curia. *
To see the broader scope of the context written by Ellen G. White, it will probably be necessary to allow more time to pass to see what actions the Papacy takes in the near future, or what further reactions they release on the matter. As you see, the apology is powerful and encompassing, but shrewdly retains the infallibility of the Papacy itself.
I’ll be back to write more later, and respond if necessary.
