Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rabarker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pythons said:
I left after that last go around about the Trinity - I mean seriously, would you expect to go to a program held by the Catholic Church…
…And expect to see a large number of Catholics hammer on the Priest about the alien introduction of Mary in Christianity?
…This is essentially what I observed at the end of days seminar at the SDA church.
Click to expand...
No, I would not expect that in any church.

I really do not have much to say in response to your comment.

Again, thank you for asking. I do not have a problem with any sincere questions.
 
I’ve went back and read our discussion over several times and something sort of stuck out at me…
…You’ve been kind & fairly forthright in your answers to my questions & I appreciate that a lot.
…I’m left with the understanding that the SDA Church couldn’t possibly lay claim to being the organization founded by Christ.
…Because it’s still, for lack of a better word, involved in a process of mutation.

I pretty sure that we would both agree that Doctrine “develops” ( as in over time we understand more about the foundation )…
…I think we can also both agree that Doctrine doesn’t mutate ( as in doctrine over time doesn’t became the opposite of what it was ).
…This is what I mean by mutation.

Example / Mutation of Doctrine:
Jesus is NOT God in the sense that The Father is God MUTATES into Jesus IS God in the sense the Father is God.

We’ve explored multiple statements made by Ellen White as well as SDA individuals who referred to Ellen White…
…These statements can’t be reconciled with a belief in the Trinity - in fact what’s evident is the direct opposite.
…However, much later in Ellen’s life her views on the Doctrine of the Trinity started to mutate.

I would argue that the Catholic Church does not have in it’s history a mutation of Doctrine such as this…
…I mean by that - that the Catholic Church doesn’t formally say such & such is an article of faith.
…Then later come alone and condemn what they previously taught as heretical error and mutate the teaching into something totally opposite.

I believe we have this in SDA history & despite the accounts of Ellen falling on the floor & having these “prophetic Seer” experiences…
…If I understand you correctly you say that SDA’s don’t view Ellen as being a prophet in the common sense of the word?
…This is difficult to understand and I’ve seen quite a bit to indicate other SDA’s don’t share your view in this.

It’s difficult to process I admit.
 
Pythons said:
If I understand you correctly you say that SDA’s don’t view Ellen as being a prophet in the common sense of the word?
…This is difficult to understand and I’ve seen quite a bit to indicate other SDA’s don’t share your view in this.
Click to expand...
It’s difficult to process I admit.
Click to expand...
I fully understand that it is difficult for your to process what I have said. I expect to comment more later. But, for now:

Seventh-day Adventists do not officially see Ellen White as a prophet in the common sense of the word in the following areas:
  1. As a Jean Dixon type who tells the future. Although I will acknowledge that she did some of that. But, that was not her major work. Probably the majority of SDAs would agree with me on this.
  2. The official position of the SDA church is that her writings are not to be elevated to a level of equality with the Bible and that her writings are to be judged by the Bible. Her writings are not canonical. You could find SDAs who would disagree with that statement. But, they would be outside of the official position of the SDA church. As I have said, the SDA Church is divided into several groups as far as doctrine and life style is concerned.
You and I have been frank and I have attempted to be fair, honest and open. I value our discussion. I have gained some knowledge from Catholics by being here that I had not picked up form my past relationships with Catholic priests–as a military and VA chaplain, and working closely with them.

At the same time, you have also been kind.

But, I do want you to feel free to ask me any question that you would like to ask.
 
Pythons said:
I pretty sure that we would both agree that Doctrine “develops” ( as in over time we understand more about the foundation )…
…I think we can also both agree that Doctrine doesn’t mutate ( as in doctrine over time doesn’t became the opposite of what it was ).
…This is what I mean by mutation.
Click to expand...
Example / Mutation of Doctrine:
Jesus is NOT God in the sense that The Father is God MUTATES into Jesus IS God in the sense the Father is God.
Click to expand...
We’ve explored multiple statements made by Ellen White as well as SDA individuals who referred to Ellen White…
…These statements can’t be reconciled with a belief in the Trinity - in fact what’s evident is the direct opposite.
…However, much later in Ellen’s life her views on the Doctrine of the Trinity started to mutate.
Click to expand...
I would argue that the Catholic Church does not have in it’s history a mutation of Doctrine such as this…
…I mean by that - that the Catholic Church doesn’t formally say such & such is an article of faith.
…Then later come alone and condemn what they previously taught as heretical error and mutate the teaching into something totally opposite.
Click to expand...
We could get into a discussion in which it might look to others that we were playing games with words. I do not want to get into that type of a situation.

We both know that the early Church Councils were often called to define true doctrine and heretical error. We both know that there have been times in the past when spiritual leaders in the Catholic Church were overcome with error in lifestyle and in doctrine. We know that there are differences between Latin Rite and Eastern Rite Catholics that exists today even if we might say that those differences do not amount to fundamental error.

The bottom line for me is that I do not consider the development of Catholic doctrine to be fundamentally different from that of the SDA denomination even if the specific doctrines were different.

NOTE: I probably do need to clarify here. As Protestants, the SDA denomination attempts to base its fundamental beliefs on the Bible. Differing from us, the Catholic Church, as I understand it, attempts to base its fundamental beliefs on the Bible, and upon what it considers to be the leading of God in the life and ministry of the cooperate body of the Catholic Church. Forgive me if I have not stated it well. I think you know what I mean.

Part of the differences that you and I have may be that you and I see both the Catholic Church and the SDA Church from different perspectives. Even when we attempt to be objective and fair, we do have a bias.
 
Let me illustrate a bit about the SDA Church:

We have a positive belief about the Sabbath. While some of our members may not understand this, we do not have a negative belief about Sunday. The core of our belief involves not rejecting the Sabbath.

Federal government chaplains can be fired from the positions by the denomination that endorses them. The SDA Church has, in its history done so, although it will often attempt to persuade the person to resign. I am personally aware to the Catholic Church doing exactly that.

During my 38 years as a Federal chaplain (Army & VA) I have conducted more worship services on Sunday than I have done on Saturday and by a very large majority. That has been done with the official blessing of the SDA Denomination. That is because our belief about the Sabbath is as I have stated above.

I have no doubt that there are SDA members who do not understand this and disagree with the denominational position that has allowed me to conduct those many Sunday worship services. There are probably those on the extreme end would soundly condemn me for doing so. Some of those might even be SDA members, while others might not be so.

Regardless, the fact remains, as I have stated it.
 
Pythons, underlying your reaction to what I have posted is probably a question in your mind as to whether or not my posts represent mainline SDA positions, or if my positions are outliers. Perhaps the following will help you to see some comments by others:
One of the most significant statements by the Seventh-day Adventist Church in recent times regarding advancement in light is that of William G. Johnsson, Editor of the Adventist Review.
Click to expand...
“Adventist beliefs have changed over the years under the impact of ‘present truth’. Most startling is the teaching regarding Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. . . . the Trinitarian understanding of God, now part of our fundamental beliefs, was not generally held by the early Adventists.” - Adventist Review, Jan 6, 1994. p.10.
Click to expand...
Of such significance is this change that George Knight, Andrews University Seminary professor made the following statement in Ministry, the official Seventh-day Adventist journal for ministers:
Click to expand...
“Most of the founders of Seventh-day Adventism would not be able to join the church today if they had to subscribe to the denomination’s Fundamental Beliefs. More specifically, most would not be able to agree to belief number 2, which deals with the doctrine of the trinity.” - Ministry, October 1993, p. 10.
Click to expand...
Jerry Moon

sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/Trinity%20Review%20art.htm

sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/moon/moon-trinity1.htm

Kai Arasola

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDcQFjAEahUKEwiyj-nrwcbHAhXNEJIKHQAHBxU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.apiu.edu%2Fdownload-individual-articles-pdf%2Fhistorical-reflections-on-early-adventist-anti-trinitarianism-ka-pdf%2Fdownload&ei=gZHdVfLKDs2hyASAjpyoAQ&usg=AFQjCNEYfyTZ4NtJotXtkiFjJn_
awTUxIg

NOTE: You will have to open the pdf file, after you have clicked on the redirect page.

Gilbert Valentine

sdanet.org/atissue/trinity/valentine.htm

John Skrzpaszek

research.avondale.edu.au/theo_chapters/37/ Abstract only

This work addresses the idea that you presented that the real issue with J.H. Kellogg was his acceptance of the Trinity. it suggests that Kellogg’s view was hardly orthodox.

NOTE: There is much more available on the Internet. I just selected the above as a sample.
 
Pythons, there is an additional factor in understanding the beliefs of some early leaders in the developing SDA denomination.

To be clear, I will not argue that our early leaders were orthodox. I agree with the statement that I quoted above by George Knight about our early leaders. But, sometimes people present a simplified version when it may be more complex.

As I have posted before. While still not orthodox, some were probably semi-Arian rather than full-blown Arian.

This probably stemmed, in part, from a failure on the part of some of our early leaders to understand what the Trinity doctrine actually entailed.

An examination of the thinking of Joseph Bates will suggest that he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity because he thought it taught Modalistic Monarchianism. John Loughborough thought that the Trinity doctrine taught Tritheism. J.B. Frisbie probably thought that it taught a form of Docetism.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that our early leaders were orthodox. I am only saying that this issue is probably more complex that some have thought.
 
Pythons, I suspect that lurking in the background is a question in your mind as to the SDA positon in regard to a Latin phrase Vicarius Filii Dei.

You know exactly what my point of reference is. Without researching it, I suspect that Uriah Smith was responsible for the thinking of our early SDA leaders as to the application of Vicarius Filii Dei

Well, as you know, the Catholic Church has responded to that issue. I personally take that response very seriously. As a result, I am quite willing to say that the early thinking of our leaders lacks the foundational documentation that I would need to support the early thinking of our leaders. IOW that early position is without documentation and it should not be promoted today by any informed person. The position that I have just stated is also held by many SDAs.

Is it 100%? No. it is not. Some are probably ignorant of the lack of documentation. Others may have other reasons. Regardless, it is not 100%.

In any case, the SDA Church today is not exactly where it was in its beginning days.

I have no problem acknowledging such.
 
I should probably be clear on another point.

The SDA Church and I have major doctrinal differences with the Catholic Church. We do agree on some very important doctrines. Yet, we have major differences in other areas. I do not want to misrepresent that.

My purpose in being here is to engage in dialogue that promotes better understanding of where we are. We are misunderstood, and sometimes that is our own fault.
 
Pythons, I wonder how many people reading here are aware of the extent to which Catholic hospitals and SDA hospitals have cooperated?

For an answer to this, see:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centura_Health

But there is more. When the above merger was considered, Both Catholics and SDAs were concerned and questioned whether or not the proposed partnership would compromise their respective beliefs.

The following is an interesting article by a SDA who attended a major Catholic meeting:

spectrummagazine.org/article/colin-maclaurin/2008/10/25/adventist-catholic-festival
 
Pythons, you are very well acquainted with the SDA denomination, its beliefs and history. You might find interesting the following:

The One Project: Celebrating the supremacy of Jesus through the Adventist Church

See:

the1project.org/

This is a semi-independent group that was started in 2010 by a group of five (5) SDA clergy, who remain employed as SDA clergy. It has one focus: To make Jesus Christ the central focus of SDA belief and life.

It is semi-independent. The SDA denomination does not control it. But, SDA Clergy administrators sit on its Board and offer advice. At the present time it has become international in scope holding meetings in other countries. As it is a developing organization, it is possible that sometime in the future some changes might take place. It might formally become a ministry of the SDA Church. It might remain as it now is and it might become an independent, but supporting the SDA denomination. In all of these cases, I would expect that its founders (and leaders) would continue to remain SDA Clergy in good standing.

A point of self-disclosure: I am not formally connected to The One Project and have no position of leadership. However, I am a supporter. In addition, I have a close personal relationship with one of its founders and a major leader. On a typical week, if he is not traveling, I am likely to either meet with him personally or communicate with him three (3) times. So, I have a bias.

My reason for posting this is to give you an example of some of what the SDA Church is today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top