Question for X-SDA or knowledgeable Catholic

[losh14]

CLAIM 3: The Antichrist is a worldwide church, so it must be the Catholic Church.
OBJECTION: Non-unique. Accrording to adventist.org, the SDA church is active in 125 nations - thus also sitting on many waters. This could easily reference pagan Rome - which was arguably the center of the world at the time - but would not exclude Israel.

Out of all these the Catholic church truly can make such a claim. She supersedes the others.

Rhetorical error: proof by assertion. As of today, the Catholic Church is spreading more slowly than the Mormons and than Islam, and claims membership of at best only 1 out of 4 Christians. The Papacy’s power has been on the wane since the 12th century. What uniquely would allow us to make such an onerous claim?

CLAIM 4: The Antichrist is a wealthy church, so it must be Catholic.
OBJECTION: The GDP of Vatican City - as a nation - is less than that of Rhode Island. Too much is made of the wealth in Church property - honestly, what is the value of the Sistene Chapel, or the Agony of St. Theresa? Most dioceses run at a deficit with the bulk of their spending on social welfare. Hardly the mark of a harlot.

We all know that wealth is measured in property and in this age is more valuable than cash, that devalues more than any other asset.

Baloney. By what Scriptural rubric do you think that the wealth enjoyed by the Whore is talking about property, and what kind of property? Moreover, what kind of property is worth more than cash on hand, and what kind of currency devalues more than any other asset?

Once you’ve clarified Scripture’s intent, please also present accounting of the Catholic Church’s wealth in opposition to that of the Adventists.

I’ve a graduate degree in economics. You’re blowing smoke on this one and I’m holding you to an answer.

CLAIM 5: The Antichrist is a church built on seven hills, which is Rome and so is the Catholic Church.
OBJECTION: The seven hills of Rome are: Quirinal, Viminal, Capitoline, Esquiline, Palatine, Coelian, Aventine. Vatican City is named for the only hill on which it is built - the Vatican. It’s not part of the Rome that John understood and the reference, if it were to the Vatican, would be lost on his audience. The seven hills refer to the pagan Roman Empire that was situated there.

Do not forget that the church came out of Rome. Daniel’s prophecy clearly states that: and the church took the name to further verify the fact, “Roman Catholic Church”.

If Daniel stated the antichrist would come out of Rome, please cite that.
Please also cite where Daniel uniquely identifies the Catholic Church in such a way that he could not be referring to Imperial Rome.

CLAIM 6: The Antichrist is a religious power that dominates civil powers.
OBJECTION: This is not substantiated by Rev 17. The Whore’s fornication is not equivalent to her control of them, and Scripture does not go so far as to assert an equivalence. The Whore’s guilt is her relatons with them, and may very well be her submission to their control. Again, 1st century Israel submitting to Roman rule.

“She commits fornication with them”. What better way to get what you want. Women have gotten there way for years by the same. Thousands have lost their lives by the same, leave families, lost money by the seduction of women. The church is cast in such a role.

Can you defend your metaphorical reasoning? Are you asserting that Catholics pervert other churches by having sex with congregants in order to get them to abandon the Word?

A more logical metaphor - one that would have been understood by John’s contemporaries and especially those converts from Judaism would be that adultery indicates a betrayal of God’s Covenant and forsaking Him for paganism. To employ this as a method of control is to introduce a new analogy to Scripture.

CLAIM 7: The Antichrist is a persecuting church.
OBJECTION. Persecuting? Yes. Church? No, Roman Empire. We have evidence of pagan Imperial Rome’s persecution of Christians (ie, the martyrdom of Polycarp). So far, what you have produced is biased sources, one of which (American Textbook of Popery) is reproduced in the link.

How did the church react to what it called heresy?

Better yet, can you find a heretic who was persecuted for putting forward a church that resembles the SDA movement of today? Can you call a Dualist or Docetist a Christian when they deny Christ’s very existence or talk Him away as a ghost-like manifestation?

Many are looking for a wicked person to do the job but thatl would be obvious. Jesus said that even the elect is in danger of being deceived. What is obvious can not deceive and a church is beat to do this job in the context.

So the wicked lies of SDA would mean that SDA is the true church? Clever.

 

[losh14]

Revelations and Daniel are two books that can be understood together.

I think what I take as common literary language you take as cohesion of purpose.

You will find that some of the same terms are used and you may well know that many scholars accept that they are better understood together.

Weasel words - “well know” and “many scholars”. The scholars whom I trust would consider these very distinct sets of prophecies that use common language because that was what was understood by the initial audience.

In Daniel we see that the things shown Daniel will not be understood until the end when knowledge will be increased and men travel extensively ( my words).

We already fly around the world in 16 hours - where else must we travel? Interestingly, a deuterocanonical work of Esdras argues that an additional 70-some tomes of Scripture will be revealed before the End.

This is addressing our time and Revelation being of the same must also address our time. Also consider that if it was for John’s time all the events would be long pass and we certainly do not believe that.

All events in Revelation are not given a timeline relative to one another and so we cannot expect for God to be on a clock with these. While Daniel does give an indication of duration of events, he does not reference the events of Revelation specifically. So beyond that these both are prophecies and use some common literary language, we do not have reason to suppose that these describe teh same events - as opposed to say the books of Kings and Chronicles.

 

[losh14]

CLAIM 8: Antichrist is a church that revives ancient Babylon’s paganism, which is the Catholic Church.
OBJECTION: This is where it becomes so contrived I’m just not going to waste more time going further. For one, where is the description of Babylonian worship?

The church has many practices and doctrines that are not biblical. She validates them by saying there are traditions and that traditions are equal with the bible. Where did they originate? I believe the statement to refer to confusion. This is also the meaning of Babylon.

So Bablyon does not refer to paganism but to confusion? So the Catholic Church, in imitating Babylon, is not actually imitating Babylonian worship, but intentionally being confusing? You really have no idea what we’re about, do you? Seriously, just watch a Mass online. I don’t think it’ll be remotely what you expect.

I am not going compile a long list, for me one error is enough for others I know more may be required,

You’re weaseling out again. And you’re frustrating me because I ask you for an answer and you dodge the point and move on to the next one.

The church and many Christians believe that at death the righteous goes to heaven, they also believe that Jesus would return for His saints. How can that be? We are in heaven! What will he come for? That is confusion! A man you are agreed to meet is in your house and then you are going to get up to go for him. How can we not see these things?

Where does Scripture indicate that all the saints will be dead at the Second Coming?
I think this argument above puts you in opposition to every Orthodox, Reform and Evangelical Christian on these boards. It’s really a unique and heterodox view of things.

 

[losh14]

Please stop spreading this lie. The Catholic Chruch came about long after the first christians and apostles. This claim is an attempt to validate the church.

Please stop spreading your lie. The Catholic Church was originated by Christ and all other Churches spring off from her. Your claim is an attempt to invalidate the True Church.

 

[ryanoneil]

You are wrong. Jesus was not crucified in a city, but outside a city. You’re not going to tell me that Jesus was actually crucified in a city, are you? That ‘great city’ is the world, also called ‘Babylon’ and ‘Sodom and Egypt’.

I never said Jesus was crucified in a city. The verse says WHERE their Lord was crucified.

You are not entirely wrong, but you are missing the original meaning of the scripture. The Lord was refering to what would happen to Jerusalem and the Temple within a generation of his death and resurrection. Like many Near East religions, the Israelites regarded their Temple as a miniature replica of the world and an architectural model of the universe fashioned by God. Start with the Old Testament city/world that scripture said would pass before you skip ahead 2,000 years. Fulfillment of prophecy becomes future prophecy.

Revelation 11:8 makes a parallel between the world and Sodom and Egypt. It makes a comparison between Sodom and Gomorrah, which were two cities that were destroyed with an eternal fire, and Sodom and Egypt, which is also called Babylon which is the world; the world will be destroyed with an eternal fire in the same way Sodom and Egypt was destroyed with an eternal fire and was reduced to ashes.

The city of Jerusalem. . .

Many people will pass by this city and ask one another: “Why has the LORD done this to so great a city?” And the answer will be given: “Because they have deserted their covenant with the LORD, their God, by worshiping and serving strange gods.” (Jer 22:8-9)

which crucified the Lord Jesus . . .

When they had brought them in and made them stand before the Sanhedrin, the high priest questioned them, “We gave you strict orders (did we not?) to stop teaching in that name. Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and want to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles said in reply, "We must obey God rather than men. The God of our ancestors raised Jesus, though you had him killed by hanging him on a tree. (Acts 5:27-30)

Peter says that the world will burn in fervent heat, and that the elements will melt in fire. This is exactly what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah. Both Sodom & Gomorrah and Sodom & Egypt have ‘Sodom’ because ‘Sodom’ tells us what their ending will be. Jesus was crucified in Sodom and Egypt, the great city which is the world. And this great city will burn with an eternal fire just like the literal Sodom and Gomorrah burned with an eternal fire.

**Jerusalem is crumbling, Judah is falling; for their speech and their deeds are before the LORD, a provocation in the sight of his majesty. Their very look bears witness against them; their sin like Sodom they vaunt, They hide it not. Woe to them! they deal out evil to themselves. (Is 3:8-9)

But among Jerusalem’s prophets I saw deeds still more shocking: Adultery, living in lies, siding with the wicked, so that no one turns from evil; To me they are all like Sodom, its citizens like Gomorrah. (Jer 23:14)**

That ‘great city’ is Babylon, Sodom and Egypt (i.e.: the world).

They shall come against you from the north with chariots and wagons and many peoples. Shields, bucklers, and helmets they shall array against you everywhere. I will leave it to them to judge, and they will judge you by their own ordinances. I will let loose my jealousy against you, so that they shall deal with you in fury, cutting off your nose and ears; and what is left of you shall fall by the sword. They shall take away your sons and daughters, and what is left of you shall be devoured by fire. They shall strip off your clothes and seize your splendid ornaments. I will put an end to your lewdness and to the harlotry you began in Egypt; you shall no longer look toward it, nor shall you remember Egypt again. For thus says the Lord GOD: I am now handing you over to those whom you hate, to those who fill you with disgust. They shall deal with you in hatred, seizing all that you have worked for and leaving you stark naked, so that your indecent nakedness is exposed. Your lewdness and harlotry have brought these things upon you, because you played the harlot with the nations by defiling yourself with their idols. (Ezek 23:24-30)

"When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is at hand. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. Let those within the city escape from it, and let those in the countryside not enter the city, for these days are the time of punishment when all the scriptures are fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-22)

Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff and I was told, "Come and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count those who are worshiping in it. But exclude the outer court of the temple; do not measure it, for it has been handed over to the Gentiles, who will trample the holy city for forty-two months. (Rev 11:1-2)

Understand that the fulfillment of OT scripture became prophecy of the devastation of the Temple and the judgment of Israel in A.D. 70. This is the immediate context of scripture which has already come to pass. Otherwise known as foreshadowing. Imbedded in this are the spiritual truths that point to Christ’s Second Coming in glory- and the end of the visible world.

 

[ryanoneil]

Losh 14

CLAIM 1: In the Bible, a woman symbolizes a church.
OBJECTION: The website cites Is 54 and Ez 16, which accuse Jews of committing the spiritual equivalent of adultery by participating in idol worship. It is not uniquely a church - an institution based on covenantal relationship with God is sufficient. Ie, you can’t rule out first-century Judaism as being represented by the Whore, especially given the Scriptural precedent in Isaiah and Ezekiel which readers of John’s Apocalypse would have understood.
Do not ignore that the church is called Israel. Gal Galatians 3:29
If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. It is also clear that the church is called the bride. Revelation 19:7
Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready.
And there are others that will clearly verify that the church and those who are of God are refer to as a woman or bride Hosea depicts the relationship of a husband and his wife at God’s instructions to reflect the attitude of Israel in her relationship with God. There are too many references to such to deny that a woman is used as a symbol of the church in relation to God. What about the parable of the 10 virgins.

CLAIM 2: The Whore is a corrupt church that teaches false doctrines.
OBJECTION: The Whore is punished for her adultery - and this is consistent with the language in Isaiah and Ezekiel. It is that she broke her marriage vows and is thus playing the harlot - again, the Jews are John’s intended target.

The Jews are not the object of God’s special attention at this time but the church, spiritual Israel. All can agree that she lost that when she rejected Christ and Paul speaks of it in Roams 11

Will continue.

Exactly! Try re-reading Romans 11. Paul is writing “in order to make my race jealous and thus save some of them” (Rom 11:14) The “remnant chosen by grace” (Rom 11:5) is faithful Israel that has entered the Church, otherwise known as the bride of Christ. The whore is unfaithful Israel who is cut off. The Temple had not been destroyed yet, when Paul wrote this. Call unfaithful Israel a church if it helps you understand who is being talked about in the Apocalypse. One followed the Messiah the other had him crucified. The special attention to one was salvation and the special attention to the other was destruction.

One very important point is that what is writen in Revalations is for us not those in John’s time.

Revelation was written for those in John’s time. It describes the fulfillment of Christ’s own words using apocalyptic language.

"When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know that its desolation is at hand. Then those in Judea must flee to the mountains. Let those within the city escape from it, and let those in the countryside not enter the city, for these days are the time of punishment when all the scriptures are fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-22)

We can’t apply Revelation to ourselves until we understand the immediate context of the scripture. It has all passed, but it points toward the future.

 

[Pythons]

I have been searching this forum to see if there is something on this topic but could not find one so I thought that I’d ask an ex-Adventist or any knowledgeable Catholic to comment on the SDA doctrine of the beast of Revelation 13:11= The Catholic Church. I don’t have a commentary on the book of Revelation and the one that I would like to get (Scott Hahn’s) is too expensive for our budget just now. Also, does anyone know if there is a Catholic commentary on the book of Revelation on the internet?

Thanks,

Annie

1st some short history on the SDA’s.

In the 1800’s a Baptist minister named William Miller announced that he had calculated the month and day of Jesus’ second coming. When the time came and went Miller determined the error was due to not considering the zero year between B.C. and A.D. and subsequently set a new date for the return of Christ.

The second predicted date failed to produce a 2nd coming and Miller apologized to the world and confessed his error. The majority of the people that were in the Advent movement returned to their former churches leaving the people who didn’t have a Church to return to.

The remaining people who remained had one belief in common - a rejection of the Trinity, however, this was not enough to keep them in communion. This core group of individuals were then known as “Adventists”. In short order squabbles over doctrines took place and the Adventists fractured into competing sects - one group of these people became known as “Seventh-day Adventists” because they adopted the 7th day as the Sabbath and believed that Ellen White was a prophet which could establish doctrines without error. Another group believed differently and they became the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the WWCOG, etc, etc, etc. So, a Jehovah’s Witness is as much an Adventist as is an SDA - they are just not “Seventh day” Adventists.

Now, as to their teachings about the Catholic Church being the great whore ( not the beast ). SDA’s reject “Bible Alone” and believe that Ellen White could determine truth from error. It’s important to remember that when speaking with them because they are not concerned with what Scripture says but rather what Ellen White says Scripture says. To demonstrate what I mean I offer the following quote from the prophet Ellen.
Ellen White:

Ellen White Enabled to Clearly Define Truth and Error.–At that time [after the 1844 disappointment] one error after another pressed in upon us; ministers and doctors brought in new doctrines. We would search the Scriptures with much prayer, and the Holy Spirit would bring the truth to our minds.

Sometimes whole nights would be devoted to searching the Scriptures and earnestly asking God for guidance. Companies of devoted men and women assembled for this purpose. The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established, our feet were placed upon a solid foundation. We accepted the truth point by point under the demonstration of the Holy Spirit. I would be taken off in vision and explanations would be given me. I was given illustrations of heavenly things and of the sanctuary, so that we were placed where light was shining on us in clear, distinct rays

That quote was to level the playing field so to speak so that you will know what they mean when they say they prove their teachings from the Bible. In other words they are no more “Bible Alone” then we are. This claimed power of their prophet is where they get the teaching that the Catholic Church is the great whore mentioned in the Book of Revelation. It’s too bad that it’s not the only strange teaching.

The other thing you need to be aware of is how apt they are at pouring in new and alien definitions to words you are familiar with. Take the Trinity for example. It’s generally understood that SDA’s accept the Trinity, right? I’m thinking they do not because they teach that Jesus could have sinned and lost His salvation. In this SDA hypothetical, God wakes up Christ from soul sleep and casts Him into the fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. The SDA’s have re-defined sin to only mean yielding to evil desires therefore the evil desire in and itself is not sin and only becomes a sin once you have acted it out. Example from their official teaching.
SDA Signs of the Times:

1. Suffered in the flesh.—**Christ took upon himself the infirmities and sins of the flesh **(Heb. 2 :14; 4 :15 ; 2 Cor. 5: 21); but to every sin he died ; every lust he crucified ; every selfish desire he denied himself

; and all for our sakes. We are to
reckon ourselves dead unto sin (Rom. 6 :11), to put to death the passions and sins of the flesh (Rom. 8 :12, 13 ; Gal. 5 : 24), to deny ourselves (Matt. 16: 24), to renounce all nnd follow him (Luke 14 : 33). Thus, dying to sin, in Christ \ve cease from sin and live unto God. Rom. 6:11; 7:4. This death to sin is in a sense instantaneous when the soul by faith yields all to God and accepts of Christ’s death for his death and Christ’s life for his life. Rom. 6: 3-7.

It is progressive in the sense that, day by day, moment by moment, the soul, by the Spirit of God, yields every.upspringing lust of the flesh to the will of God. He died to sin when he yielded himself to God. When the lust of the mortal body asserts itself, he reckons it dead ; it is crucified by the Spirit, and Christ reigns instead of carnal lust. Rom. 6: 11, 12. The lust is not sin; it is yieldingto the lust that is sin. James 1:15.

Original sin is out the window with these folks - they claim that Christ was tempted just like we are tempted “in relation to lusts of the flesh” therefore they boldy state that Christ did not yield to every selfish desire HE HAD! Rest assured that this is not the same Trinity of Orthodox Christianity that states that Christ could not sin because Christ is God and Impeccable ( could never sin ). The SDA’s say the same thing in their Sabbath School study.
Ellen White:

Because of sin, his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted.** He could have sinned; He could have fallen**, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. He was assailed with temptations in the wilderness, as Adam was assailed with temptations in Eden. {13MR 18.1}

There are many other strange teachings the SDA’s have yet they reject “Bible Alone” as well as “once saved always saved”. If you are grounded in the Catholic Faith you can reason with them and show them 1st how we ( Catholics ) believe that God established an error free way to know what is truth and what is error then demonstrate from the Scriptures that the model in Scripture is that Apostolic Authority established doctrines NOT prophets. In the Bible a prophet rebukes the people for falling away from doctrines that were previously established ( Korah in the Old Testament and the dispute in Acts 15 ) come to mind. Not once do we see an example of a doctrine being established by a prophet falling down and claiming they went into outer space and spoke with Enoch! Do this and you will not have any issues with defending the Catholic Faith and planting the seed of the Gospel in the SDA’s.

 

[losh14]

Thanks Pythons.

A few brief thoughts:

1. Was Ellen White’s anti-Catholicism a personal conviction or a reflection of anti-Catholic sentiment at the time? I think Nativism is to blame for the anti-Catholic doctrine that cropped up in contemporary movements - Latter-Day Saints, Dispensationalism, Restorationism, etc.
2. Was the antagonism to the Trinity existent at the time or did it develop later?
3. I think the unifying force of Miller’s group was millenial thought first - a focus on the imminent Second Coming.

You make some good points about Ellen White’s understanding of Christ but I’m not sure they would directly translate into a refutation of the Trinity. I do see where you get that understanding though, especially since Jehovah’s Witnesses consider Christ inferior to the Father. Maybe there is a difference of understanding along the theological spectrum of Adventists (which include SDA as well as 7th Day Baptists, technically members of two distinct denominations under two distinct governing bodies).

I would argue that SDA understanding of the Trinity would not necessarily include what we Catholics call the hypostatic union - an equality and coexistence of human and divine in Christ, but that’s based on what you’ve posted of Ellen White above and what snippets are on the Adventist.org official site.

To take White’s argument of how Christ faced temptation it almost seems like Christ was able to resist temptation for the same reason humans are - because the Spirit empowers us. If the contrapositive is true - that if Christ had not received the Spirit He would have sinned - that would subjugate Christ below Father and Spirit.

As far as White’s prophetic gifts, I found this interesting enough to re-quote:

The power of God would come upon me, and I was enabled clearly to define what is truth and what is error. As the points of our faith were thus established,

This is the essence of a sola scriptura rejection of magisterial authority … “I am able by the Spirit to discern truth from error” … taken to the ironic conclusion of an exclusive I, Ellen White.

This claimed power of their prophet is where they get the teaching that the Catholic Church is the great whore mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

I’d imagine she promoted such ideas but the audience was likely receptive anyway. This was the same America as that of the Philadelphia Riots. I don’t think these views are as militant among modern SDAs - at least I’ve not heard of any Adventists attempting to burn down Catholic churches lately.

It’s generally understood that SDA’s accept the Trinity, right? I’m thinking they do not because they teach that Jesus could have sinned and lost His salvation. In this SDA hypothetical, God wakes up Christ from soul sleep and casts Him into the fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. The SDA’s have re-defined sin to only mean yielding to evil desires therefore the evil desire in and itself is not sin and only becomes a sin once you have acted it out.

Do they claim that Christ endured soul sleep?

The teaching on sin is certainly distinct from our own although it follows a little more loosely from total depravity - ie, if you are always predisposed towards sin, why should God hold your nature against you? Why not just hold your actions against you? So I think they part with Calvin’s teaching that condemnation flows from nature but I think the ultimate question is whether Christ resisted temptation of His own power or whether there is another prime mover to whom Christ is subservient.

Then again, to say Christ could have sinned, could have fallen, suggests a definitive break with Orthodoxy.

Not once do we see an example of a doctrine being established by a prophet falling down and claiming they went into outer space and spoke with Enoch!

Within the Pentecostal movement there have been so-called prophets who have claimed revelation through ecstatic visions. Oddly, some of them that I’ve heard second-hand (through a former Pentecostal) sounded a lot like Purgatory, the idea of a cleansing place for those bound for Heaven.

 

[Pythons]

Thanks Pythons.

A few brief thoughts:

1. Was Ellen White’s anti-Catholicism a personal conviction or a reflection of anti-Catholic sentiment at the time? I think Nativism is to blame for the anti-Catholic doctrine that cropped up in contemporary movements - Latter-Day Saints, Dispensationalism, Restorationism, etc.

I’m not sure where it incepted other then she was very young and got married to James White which slandered the Trinity every chance he could get. James was very vocal on the Trinity and how it was a doctrine of demons.
losh:

1. Was the antagonism to the Trinity existent at the time or did it develop later?

It wasn’t an issue when William Miller was in full swing. Subsequent to the Advent movement suffering collapse the majority of the followers of Miller were re-absorbed into their previous denominations leaving only the anti Trinity folks left who had no denomination to go to. It was these folks who became known as “Adventists”.
losh:

1. I think the unifying force of Miller’s group was millenial thought first - a focus on the imminent Second Coming.

Yes, that’s the way I understand it. The “Advent” movement was convinced they had calculated what Scripture told them no man could calculate. The Adventists ( SDA’s and JW’s ) took it several steps past that and when their dates failed to produce anything they adopted a theology that claimed the date was right but they got the event wrong.
losh:

You make some good points about Ellen White’s understanding of Christ but I’m not sure they would directly translate into a refutation of the Trinity. I do see where you get that understanding though, especially since Jehovah’s Witnesses consider Christ inferior to the Father. Maybe there is a difference of understanding along the theological spectrum of Adventists (which include SDA as well as 7th Day Baptists, technically members of two distinct denominations under two distinct governing bodies).

Ellen was explicit that Christ was the only Being that could enter into the councils of “God” then explicitly stated that Satan, was, next to Christ, the Highest angel in heaven.
Ellen White:

I have thought, How little the artists knew of the Bible! Before his fall Satan was, next to Christ, the highest angel in heaven.

That explicitly states that Christ is an angel. There are a ton more of these types of teachings but it’s late.
Losh:

I would argue that SDA understanding of the Trinity would not necessarily include what we Catholics call the hypostatic union - an equality and coexistence of human and divine in Christ, but that’s based on what you’ve posted of Ellen White above and what snippets are on the Adventist.org official site.

I could let it pass if that’s all it was. As it stands Ellen taught that Jesus had lusts of the flesh and could have lost His Salvation, been cast into hell by God if He actually did what He wanted to do, etc, etc, etc. That’s such a departure from the Trinity it’s alien and just the tip of the iceburg.
losh:

To take White’s argument of how Christ faced temptation it almost seems like Christ was able to resist temptation for the same reason humans are - because the Spirit empowers us. If the contrapositive is true - that if Christ had not received the Spirit He would have sinned - that would subjugate Christ below Father and Spirit.

Correct. Ellen stated that Satan, prior to his fall was higher then the Holy Spirit. Ellen called the Holy Spirit an “IT”.
losh:

As far as White’s prophetic gifts, I found this interesting enough to re-quote:

This is the essence of a sola scriptura rejection of magisterial authority … “I am able by the Spirit to discern truth from error” … taken to the ironic conclusion of an exclusive I, Ellen White.

That concept is alien to Bible onlyism - Ellen became the Pope for the denomination and stated that the General Conference was the Highest Authority God had placed upon the earth, etc.
losh:

I’d imagine she promoted such ideas but the audience was likely receptive anyway. This was the same America as that of the Philadelphia Riots. I don’t think these views are as militant among modern SDAs - at least I’ve not heard of any Adventists attempting to burn down Catholic churches lately.

No, you are right there for sure. The SDA’s believe we will, at some point in the future, attack and torture them because they keep the Sabbath and as Sunday observers we are following the beast power spoken of in the Book of Rev.
losh:

Do they claim that Christ endured soul sleep?

 

[Pythons]

Part 2,

Yes, also said He had no power to Resurrect Himself and had to wait for “God” to do it.
losh:

The teaching on sin is certainly distinct from our own although it follows a little more loosely from total depravity - ie, if you are always predisposed towards sin, why should God hold your nature against you? Why not just hold your actions against you? So I think they part with Calvin’s teaching that condemnation flows from nature but I think the ultimate question is whether Christ resisted temptation of His own power or whether there is another prime mover to whom Christ is subservient.

From what I understand they reject once saved always saved and we can certainly agree they are right there.
losh:

Then again, to say Christ could have sinned, could have fallen, suggests a definitive break with Orthodoxy.

LOL… Big time.
losh:

Within the Pentecostal movement there have been so-called prophets who have claimed revelation through ecstatic visions. Oddly, some of them that I’ve heard second-hand (through a former Pentecostal) sounded a lot like Purgatory, the idea of a cleansing place for those bound for Heaven.

I don’t see where they developed a premise from Scripture that prophets establish doctrines in the New Testament. Still have not got an answer as to where and how they sync this with Sola Scriptura which leads me to believe they are not Sola at all.

 

[knarrrj]

I have been searching this forum to see if there is something on this topic but could not find one so I thought that I’d ask an ex-Adventist or any knowledgeable Catholic to comment on the SDA doctrine of the beast of Revelation 13:11= The Catholic Church. I don’t have a commentary on the book of Revelation and the one that I would like to get (Scott Hahn’s) is too expensive for our budget just now. Also, does anyone know if there is a Catholic commentary on the book of Revelation on the internet?

Thanks,

Annie

---

Annie,
You might check out this post at mostholyfamilymonastery.com/apocalypse.php
and do a search for Our Lady of LaSalette and see what she had to say about the Church being in eclipse.
Ronald Knarr

 

[Annie39]

---

Annie,
You might check out this post at mostholyfamilymonastery.com/apocalypse.php
and do a search for Our Lady of LaSalette and see what she had to say about the Church being in eclipse.
Ronald Knarr

I cannot believe where this thread has gone since I posted my question. Sir I’M CATHOLIC. Tradition 101 is union with Rome. I have met sede vacantis types, every last one of them were kooks. I’m betting that you are no exception. In every single case (of those sedes that I’ve known) each one had a major sin that he/she was dealing with. An example can be found in the news if you pay attention. You need to repent and come home. If this post is not composed in very good English its because I’m watching Jeopardy (trying to give the correct question) whilst writing this. I don’t give too much attention to nonsense.

Annie

 

[kepha1]

---

Annie,
You might check out this post at mostholyfamilymonastery.com/apocalypse.php
and do a search for Our Lady of LaSalette and see what she had to say about the Church being in eclipse.
Ronald Knarr

The Church is not in eclipse, and that link spews venomous hate. It should be deleted.

 

[knarrrj]

I cannot believe where this thread has gone since I posted my question. Sir I’M CATHOLIC. Tradition 101 is union with Rome. I have met sede vacantis types, every last one of them were kooks. I’m betting that you are no exception. In every single case (of those sedes that I’ve known) each one had a major sin that he/she was dealing with. An example can be found in the news if you pay attention. You need to repent and come home. If this post is not composed in very good English its because I’m watching Jeopardy (trying to give the correct question) whilst writing this. I don’t give too much attention to nonsense.
Annie,
Tradition 101 is to hold the Catholic Faith. If a pope holds and teaches things that go against that Catholic Faith, I ask you, Is that “pope” a catholic or not. How can one who holds not the Catholic Faith be a catholic, let alone the pope. One cannot be a pope when he is not a catholic.
Perhaps you should just read some of the popes encyclicals on this topic, perhaps starting with Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio.
There has never been a guarantee that “popes” will never be heretics; in fact, there have been many warnings that this may happen and how to recognize them.
One must love the Faith more than their, or anyone elses, viiews lest they fall into error.

Annie

 

[Chris_Marsh]

I was saved as an adult, college graduate age 23. My parents had practically nothing to do with it, were hands off in religious matters (but Mom did see the church bus in the neighborhood as a convenient little shuttle to take the kids away for a while to give herself a break).

I met SDAs at age 27 when I was living on my own for the second time, that time in Greenbelt MD. Everything they said did make sense with the minor exception of “beasts of the earth” (they said it was mice during the bubonic plagues). They made me read Luke (24?) word by word to prove that the Sabbath was Saturday. Sakes alive! I was wrong! (But some people believe every day is important, why is that verse in there, and does it mean not going to church is OK also?) (I don’t believe Sunday worship is your ticket to hell. They could have said it more plainly than they did if that is what they meant- if they said mark, they must have meant mark, maybe a bar code tattoo or microchip implant. I think John the Apostle was describing what he saw literally.)

I am gravely concerned about the 12 or so prophecies that call the Pope/Vatican antiChrist, they seem to be right on the money too. Theocracy, small country, destroyed three countries, changed times and laws, if the shoe fits, wear it.

(Edited to remove anti-Catholic link as per Forum Rules and Banned Topics.)

The SDA are very literal Bible believing Protestants and have supported the right to read the Bible according to conscience for centuries, when long ago owning and reading a Bible could get you killed. SDA also part company with most fundamentalists, very uncomfortable with seeing religion get cozy with government, that is how the whole persecution mess started, the Catholic church achieved political power about 538 AD. I don’t know how they get off thinking Sunday worship is your ticket to hell (sounds like works to me), but otherwise there is a lot to like, much more than the system of the Catholic Church.

 

[turtleoompa]

Obviously you are not familiar with the Catholic Church. No, the antichrist can never be the pope. Antichrist was meant to describe someone who teaches against the Christ. The pope is vicar of the Christ and would never be in office if he was against the Christ. Catholics worship Mass everyday of the week. Sunday has been the Lord’s day for Catholics within the month of Jesus’s death. You will find this in the book of acts in your Bible. You need to support your accusations with fact. Catholics are complete in their philosphy. We are here to serve God. Catholics wrote the New Testament and put your Bible together. We do not focus on the end of times. We focus on prayer, giving to and loving those less fortunate, and serving the Lord. We look at the Bible as a whole. Not focusing on bits and pieces. We have the wisdom handed down from those who lived at Jesus’s time to help us understand the teachings of the Christ. Let me put it this way. As a Catholic, the person who started my religion was someone called Jesus. Catholicism is the only religion that can say this. Any person may worship as they please, I choose to be Catholic.

 

[Chris_Marsh]

Haven’t your own writings (Pope Innocent for example) made the pope sound like he is exalted as God?

Pope Innocent III “He judges all and is judged by no one”

Pope Boniface VIII “We declare, assert, define, and pronounce, to be subject to the Roman pontiff is to every human creature altogether necessary for salvation”

Pope Leo XIII: “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty”

Sounds like Vicar of the Son of God to me… your words, not mine

(Edited to remove anti-Catholic link as per Forum Rules and Banned Topics.)

Also discusses purgatory and Eucharist

You all need some tracts of your own.

 

[Chris_Marsh]

AntiChrist would be a man who exalts himself to be God.

 

[Chris_Marsh]

A wafer doesn’t save me. It probably adds some calories to my fat body though.
I’m not going to purgatory.
I am absolutely assured of going straight to Heaven (gasp).
My God is not in Rome He’s in Heaven.

It is very simple and liberating. I asked Jesus to save me and help me live His way. Finito. It is finished. I need not fear the domination of anyone. What I do for Jesus is gratitude (a nice big tip) and helps save others who watch me.

We have shepherds at the local level to help us read and understand our Bibles and places to fellowship. It does require discernment to know if they are submissive to the Lord, not every pastor is. More Bible study and quiet time are going to be needed for life.

 

[Benadam]

A wafer doesn’t save me. It probably adds some calories to my fat body though.
I’m not going to purgatory.
I am absolutely assured of going straight to Heaven (gasp).
My God is not in Rome He’s in Heaven.

It is very simple and liberating. I asked Jesus to save me and help me live His way. Finito. It is finished. I need not fear the domination of anyone. What I do for Jesus is gratitude (a nice big tip) and helps save others who watch me.

We have shepherds at the local level to help us read and understand our Bibles and places to fellowship. It does require discernment to know if they are submissive to the Lord, not every pastor is. More Bible study and quiet time are going to be needed for life.

Jesus teaches us to not speak from what we can’t see. This is speaking from our blindness. We speak of what we see. Your opening paragraph is just telling us what you can’t see.
Your third paragraph is wonderfull. You are seeking Christ. You speak of what you have seen.