SDA: Two Thoughts

[Esdra]

Hi!
I’ve read that SDAs compeltely hold the laws governing food (kashrut) written in Exodus Chapter 11.

But know Luke writes the following in Acts:

9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
[Acts 10:9-16]

Did Ellen G. White that “only” the rules concerning food of the Jews need to be observed, or are there other rules concerning food as well?
Concerning Sabbath:

Also in Acts it says:

7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
[Acts 20:7]

But the first day of the week is not the Sabbath, but the Aleph (and is now the Sunday) in the Jewish calendar.

Although I can imagine that they also met on the Sabbath in the Synagogue or the Temple as well, as this was the day the Jews worshipped God; and instructed the people there.

4And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.
[Acts 18:4]

14But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.

15And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.
42And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.
[Acts 13:14+15; 42]

However, I’d like to demonstrate that worshipping God on Sunday, the first Day of the week, was not “invented” by the Catholics, but clearly says in the New Testament.

Finally, I’d like to give you this verse written by St. Paul to the Colossians to think about:

16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
[Col 2:16+17]

in Christ,

 

[benidict]

Thank you. I agree with you whole heartedly. There are many issues that Protestants and Catholics are in agreement on, and these you listed are a few. Peace

 

[CMatt25]

Esdra, I am not sure what SDAs would say about the Acts verses by Luke you presented. I am nearly certain I have discussed these with an SDA but I honestly forget what the explanation was. Perhaps it was that indeed Peter could eat what was clean. But do not hold me to that answer. I do know I have been told by an SDA that other references to nothing being unclean refer to the Gentiles not being unclean.

They might say the disciples met for a meal on the first day.

But the Colossians verses I think I can nail for you. SDAs believe what is being referred to there was not the weekly 7th Day Sabbath but the various ceremonial sabbaths found in OT.

Anyway I hope this helps just a bit. And hopefully one our SDA friends can come by and do a better job than I.

God bless you and peace.

 

[SteveVH]

I think it boils down to a non-understanding of the “new and everlasting covenant” esablished by Christ. He makes all things new. Christ said that there is nothing that goes into a man that makes him unholy, but rather that which comes from his heart.
We are no longer subject to Mosaic law. We are now subject to the law written in our hearts, the law of love. We will be judged by how much we love, not what we ate.

As far as the sabbath is concerned, Sunday has been referred to by the Catholic Church as the “eighth day of creation”. Christ has made us a new creation by his passion and resurrection. We have a new sabbath, and you are correct, it has been recognized as Sunday since the beginning of the Church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Excuse me? agreement? Esdra’s take on Catholic apostacy requires clarification here if agreement can be found between Catholics and Protestants; I don’t mean to de thread here, but I disagree with the apostacy comment, from the way Esdra stated it.

Esdra quote
However, I’d like to demonstrate that worshipping God on Sunday, the first Day of the week, was not “invented” by the Catholics after they had gone into apostasy, but clearly says in the New Testament.

Thank you. I agree with you whole heartedly. There are many issues that Protestants and Catholics are in agreement on, and these you listed are a few. Peace

 

[fbl9]

Excuse me? agreement? Esdra’s take on Catholic apostacy requires clarification here if agreement can be found between Catholics and Protestants; I don’t mean to de thread here, but I disagree with the apostacy comment, from the way Esdra stated it.

I thought SDA along with others was that the Catholic church may have been the ‘true’ church at one time. However it fell into apostasy and they(SDA, etc.) are now the true church.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Nothing can more farther from the truth. To make the false claim of a “total” or any Catholic church apostacy resembles the ancient Hebrews during Moses time of calling God a liar, to which God commanded Moses to place a serpent on a stake. “The Gates of hell have never prevailed” over the Catholic church.

The fact of the matter is Catholic history records “apostates” (individuals) from the Catholic faith, but never the Catholic church has never fell into apostacy.

Again, in respect to the OP here, I don’t wish to move off topic here, I just thought the apostacy statement does not carry any credence and deserved attention.

Mormons (19th century start up) make this claim also, but could never prove or agree on when and where such a “total” apostacy occurred…

If and when you find “apostates” in Christian history, you will find the Catholic church labeling these as such, never the other way around.

I would invite an SDA to prove its Catholic Church apostacy claim from history. Grant it if the invitation is welcomed on a new thread.

The point to all this is; To make a claim of a “Catholic apostacy” proven by the “new testament”, from a commentary should be clarified as opinon or other, but I took the commentary as if it were common knowledge here, and supported by another Catholic in total agreement.

Please place my post on ignore if, I blown this out of proportion?

I thought SDA along with others was that the Catholic church may have been the ‘true’ church at one time. However it fell into apostasy and they(SDA, etc.) are now the true church.

 

[CMatt25]

Nothing can more farther from the truth. To make the false claim of a “total” or any Catholic church apostacy resembles the ancient Hebrews during Moses time of calling God a liar, to which God commanded Moses to place a serpent on a stake. “The Gates of hell have never prevailed” over the Catholic church.

The fact of the matter is Catholic history records “apostates” (individuals) from the Catholic faith, but never the Catholic church has never fell into apostacy.

Again, in respect to the OP here, I don’t wish to move off topic here, I just thought the apostacy statement does not carry any credence and deserved attention.

Mormons (19th century start up) make this claim also, but could never prove or agree on when and where such a “total” apostacy occurred…

If and when you find “apostates” in Christian history, you will find the Catholic church labeling these as such, never the other way around.

I would invite an SDA to prove its Catholic Church apostacy claim from history. Grant it if the invitation is welcomed on a new thread.

The point to all this is; To make a claim of a “Catholic apostacy” proven by the “new testament”, from a commentary should be clarified as opinon or other, but I took the commentary as if it were common knowledge here, and supported by another Catholic in total agreement.

Please place my post on ignore if, I blown this out of proportion?

Could be some don’t place the same faith in the recorded history as you do.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well if they know of another history?, I would of love learn of it and weigh it against the test of time.

One thing for sure is; Both secular history and non christian religions both record the Catholic church in their historical time frames. I don’t think the SDA “faith” can say the same about their history? I am willing to produce historical facts “not opinions of history”.

Could be some don’t place the same faith in the recorded history as you do.

 

[benidict]

Excuse me? agreement? Esdra’s take on Catholic apostacy requires clarification here if agreement can be found between Catholics and Protestants; I don’t mean to de thread here, but I disagree with the apostacy comment, from the way Esdra stated it.

Hi Gabriel. I did not read the apostasy statement like you did my friend. I think he was being tongue and cheek with that. And that he was actually standing up for the Catholic Church. The Adventist state that we apostasized and that the teachings we now have reguarding sunday happened after that. If you read it this way, Esdra was simply using their language to defend our position on sunday worship. I dont think he was calling the Church apostate. Sorry for any confusion. Im sure he can clear it up better. Peace

 

[benidict]

Well if they know of another history?, I would of love learn of it and weigh it against the test of time.

One thing for sure is; Both secular history and non christian religions both record the Catholic church in their historical time frames. I don’t think the SDA “faith” can say the same about their history? I am willing to produce historical facts “not opinions of history”.

Yes it is the same as I contend, none of SDAs teachings exist prior to E.G. Whites supposed “visions.”

 

[fbl9]

Nothing can more farther from the truth. To make the false claim of a “total” or any Catholic church apostacy resembles the ancient Hebrews during Moses time of calling God a liar, to which God commanded Moses to place a serpent on a stake. “The Gates of hell have never prevailed” over the Catholic church.

The fact of the matter is Catholic history records “apostates” (individuals) from the Catholic faith, but never the Catholic church has never fell into apostacy.

Again, in respect to the OP here, I don’t wish to move off topic here, I just thought the apostacy statement does not carry any credence and deserved attention.

Mormons (19th century start up) make this claim also, but could never prove or agree on when and where such a “total” apostacy occurred…

If and when you find “apostates” in Christian history, you will find the Catholic church labeling these as such, never the other way around.

I would invite an SDA to prove its Catholic Church apostacy claim from history. Grant it if the invitation is welcomed on a new thread.

The point to all this is; To make a claim of a “Catholic apostacy” proven by the “new testament”, from a commentary should be clarified as opinon or other, but I took the commentary as if it were common knowledge here, and supported by another Catholic in total agreement.

Please place my post on ignore if, I blown this out of proportion?

It would be ineresting to see the SDA ‘proof’ of apostasy.
That the Catholic Church is in apostasy is common “knowledge” to a SDA follower.
That SDA’s claim the Catholic Church is in apostasy is common knowledge to Catholics.

 

[CMatt25]

Well if they know of another history?, I would of love learn of it and weigh it against the test of time.

One thing for sure is; Both secular history and non christian religions both record the Catholic church in their historical time frames. I don’t think the SDA “faith” can say the same about their history? I am willing to produce historical facts “not opinions of history”.

Here is the point it seems to me many Catholics miss. In matters of faith, the Catholic faith included, one only has faith. To believe the Catholic Church has always gotten it right from day one, or has never strayed, or Christ has never needed to reform his Church along the way to prevent those gates from prevailing, one must first place faith in what the Catholic Church interprets Herself to be. And if one does not hold to such a faith, her recordings do not necessarily in every case merit fact nor truth to those who do not share the faith. Another consideration might be that an institution declaring Herself as Christ’s one and only true Church obviously might not record apostacy or straying on Her part as that could defeat the purpose of Her declaration. I hope that helps some. It all boils down to one thing. Faith. And faith in what we believe the one absolute, ultimate truth to be. Perhaps yes everyone does not have it totally right. God is God and we are mere human with finite minds for complete comprehension of such a wondrous and remarkable being as God. But God bless and peace to you and all who walk by faith and not by sight.

 

[Esdra]

Excuse me? agreement? Esdra’s take on Catholic apostacy requires clarification here if agreement can be found between Catholics and Protestants; I don’t mean to de thread here, but I disagree with the apostacy comment, from the way Esdra stated it.

That’s not my opinion! That’s what SDAs says, well actually, the term is from the LDS.

Maybe I should’ve put it into inverted commas. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Esdra]

Here is the point it seems to me many Catholics miss. In matters of faith, the Catholic faith included, one only has faith. To believe the Catholic Church has always gotten it right from day one, or has never strayed, or Christ has never needed to reform his Church along the way to prevent those gates from prevailing, one must first place faith in what the Catholic Church interprets Herself to be. And if one does not hold to such a faith, her recordings do not necessarily in every case merit fact nor truth to those who do not share the faith. Another consideration might be that an institution declaring Herself as Christ’s one and only true Church obviously might not record apostacy or straying on Her part as that could defeat the purpose of Her declaration. I hope that helps some. It all boils down to one thing. Faith. And faith in what we believe the one absolute, ultimate truth to be. Perhaps yes everyone does not have it totally right. God is God and we are mere human with finite minds for complete comprehension of such a wondrous and remarkable being as God. But God bless and peace to you and all who walk by faith and not by sight.

Great statements! ++++++++++++++ (especially the ones in Bold).
That’s actually what I believe as well.
And my dad also. We have been discussing that very often lately.

 

[Esdra]

Nothing can more farther from the truth. To make the false claim of a “total” or any Catholic church apostacy resembles the ancient Hebrews during Moses time of calling God a liar, to which God commanded Moses to place a serpent on a stake. “The Gates of hell have never prevailed” over the Catholic church.

The fact of the matter is Catholic history records “apostates” (individuals) from the Catholic faith, but never the Catholic church has never fell into apostacy.

Again, in respect to the OP here, I don’t wish to move off topic here, I just thought the apostacy statement does not carry any credence and deserved attention.

Mormons (19th century start up) make this claim also, but could never prove or agree on when and where such a “total” apostacy occurred…

If and when you find “apostates” in Christian history, you will find the Catholic church labeling these as such, never the other way around.

I would invite an SDA to prove its Catholic Church apostacy claim from history. Grant it if the invitation is welcomed on a new thread.

The point to all this is; To make a claim of a “Catholic apostacy” proven by the “new testament”, from a commentary should be clarified as opinon or other, but I took the commentary as if it were common knowledge here, and supported by another Catholic in total agreement.

Please place my post on ignore if, I blown this out of proportion?

I’ve started one. Here.

 

[CMatt25]

Great statements! ++++++++++++++ (especially the ones in Bold).
That’s actually what I believe as well.
And my dad also. We have been discussing that very often lately.

Thank you Esdra.

 

[pablope]

It would be ineresting to see the SDA ‘proof’ of apostasy.
That the Catholic Church is in apostasy is common “knowledge” to a SDA follower.
That SDA’s claim the Catholic Church is in apostasy is common knowledge to Catholics.

The LDS also believe the CC is in apostasy, have lost priestly authority. In one thread, they have been asked for proof (absolute, historically backed proof) and have not been able to. Maybe any SDA will be lucky…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you all for your (name removed by moderator)ut and clarification;

Your point is well taken here CMatt; What many outside the Catholic church miss in interpreting Christian history when only the Catholic church was in existence is that; Not that the Catholic church proclaims to have gotten it right from day one, this perception is deceptive and lends prejudice to the mind of those seeking “Truth”.

History proves that the Catholic church protected and defended the revelations of God in the Son (Jesus), and would not move herself from the teachings that were handed down to Her both written from the New Testament and the Sacred Traditions from the Apostles.

The Catholic church does not interpret for herself what She is to be; Christ built His Church upon Rock, this Rock is His body. The Catholic church cannot interpret who she is, Her apostolic succession leads all the way back to the original apostles “unbroken”, “What God has joined together no man can put asunder”.

History records many not holding to the Catholic faith by trying to implement a new gospel, or new teaching that was not handed down to the Catholic Church from the Apostles. These many repented of their errors and came back, others became “apostates” and or “heretics”.

For one to not hold to the Catholic faith, first must come to the accurate knowledge of the Catholic faith. That is why many non catholic Christians and protestants today do not fall into the category of “apostates” or “heretics”, in order to become one of these, one has to have received and understand the “full deposit of faith”, with the “fullness of Truth” from Jesus and the apostles.

What should be made clear here about Church reform, has nothing to do with the revelation of the apostolic Catholic faith, this is Rock that cannot be changed. The Catholic church never sought to reform what God gave to her and revealed to her.
Her reformed deals with disciplines at all levels from laity to the magisterium when she did not move when every wind of doctrine came against the revealed teachings from Jesus and His apostles.

This does not mean that a doctrine cannot be more clarified and “developed by defining” or growing in more understanding of what is already believed. But this is another topic.

The Catholics who sought to reform the revealed teachings of Christ, became Protestants, because the Rock = Catholic church would not deny or change what was revealed to her by God, many times at the price of death from the Popes, bishops,Saints and laypersons.

Peace be with you all

CMatt25;7578259]Here is the point it seems to me many Catholics miss. In matters of faith, the Catholic faith included, one only has faith. To believe the Catholic Church has always gotten it right from day one, or has never strayed, or Christ has never needed to reform his Church along the way to prevent those gates from prevailing, one must first place faith in what the Catholic Church interprets Herself to be. And if one does not hold to such a faith, her recordings do not necessarily in every case merit fact nor truth to those who do not share the faith.

 

[CMatt25]

The Catholic church does not interpret for herself what She is to be; Christ built His Church upon Rock, this Rock is His body. The Catholic church cannot interpret who she is, Her apostolic succession leads all the way back to the original apostles “unbroken”, “What God has joined together no man can put asunder”.

History records many not holding to the Catholic faith by trying to implement a new gospel, or new teaching that was not handed down to the Catholic Church from the Apostles. These many repented of their errors and came back, others became “apostates” and or “heretics”.

The Catholics who sought to reform the revealed teachings of Christ, became Protestants, because the Rock = Catholic church would not deny or change what was revealed to her by God, many times at the price of death from the Popes, bishops,Saints and laypersons.

Peace be with you all

Who interpreted Herself, the Catholic Church, to be Christ’s rock and only one true Church if not the Catholic Church? Who had/has interpreted She had the gospel, teaching, and succession correct and that Christ at some point did not/does not need to implement reform so no man does put asunder? Protestant reformers are the ones who interpreted the body of Christ and His Church as the body of believers and not set only within the Catholic Church. And they have interpreted Christ needed to reform His Church. In the end it still comes down to whom faith is placed in and in whose interpretations are believed. Not factual history. Indeed peace be with us all.