Seventh Day Adventist

[amun]

Where does scripture say that God rested on the 7th day of Creation as an example for humanity? Once again, we are constantly dealing with your man-made personal interpretations.

Of all the statements you’ve made, this has got to be the most logically-defying.

But if you read a few lines above, you’ll see the fact that God referred back to his resting (after his 6 day work in creating the world) and SANCTIFYING the day when he gave the command in Exodus to “remember the Sabbath” and “keep it holy”. What you’re trying to say is that God puts verses and incidents together that have no reference to each other just so he can make mockery of us.

Unfortunately, you’re making a mockery of your own intelligence. And you know better.

Umm… no it says that the Covenant (10 commandments) was not made with their fathers… It does not say that he just hadn’t posted the law that way before. Again, we see your personal interpretation clouding the clear word of God in order to support your pet doctrines

So would you like to claim now then that the Jewish people never kept the Sabbath in Exodus 16? Since the verse you’re using says “The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us even us, who are all of us here alive this day.” Which you are reading to mean “today is the first day that this law is being created”.

Unless you know how to read context, you’ll just keep believing a twisted and inconsistent Bible of your own making. It’s almost like you pull out arguments and if it doesn’t work you look for a new one.

Paul is talking in past tense… he was raised Jewish… under the Old Covenant… this is how he learned. What of it?

Out of all the classics you’ve pulled, this has got to be the most preposterous.

I already addressed this earlier in my post, but allow me point out the whole context again to show you that you are utterly mistaken:

“What shall we say then? is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet…. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died….Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

OH yes, he’s REALLY talking in past tense! That’s why the current tense ”IS” is littered all over. Do you really want other people reading your arguments and thinking to themselves “wow, that guy really doesn’t make any sense”?

(Please note again that he said that he was once alive without the law and that when the commandment was revealed that the concept of “sin” revived”.)

So when are you going to stop embarrassing yourself and finally just concede the point?

I have four questions for you:

Amun, How does scripture say that the Sabbath should be kept in the Artic Regions where there is neither sunrise or sunset for weeks or months? Can you please provide us a scripture for this problem.

Can you also show me a verse that instructs you do do communion only once every quarter or a 13th Sabbath program?

Can you please show me in scripture where it gives the qualifications of baptism? How do you know when you can baptize someone.

Can you please show me where scripture states that the Lord’s Supper is only symbolic and that when Christ said “This is my body” and “This is my blood”, that he was just kidding…

Thanks

These are all red herring tactics and arguments and they belong in a different discussion. You even said earlier that we are talking about the Sabbath and the law, so let’s finish discussing this before you try baiting me into some other extraneous topic in order to camouflage the multitudinous problems inherent in your current position.

…continued.

 

[amun]

THE OFFICIAL CATHOLIC CATECHISM UPHOLDS THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND THE SABBATH AS MORAL OBLIGATIONS: MY COMMENTARIES INCLUDED.

QUOTED FROM YOUR OFFICIAL CHURCH CATECHISM (vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM):

“1979 The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law.”

Ta da!

“2052 “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” To the young man who asked this question, Jesus answers first by invoking the necessity to recognize God as the “One there is who is good,” as the supreme Good and the source of all good. Then Jesus tells him: “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”** And he cites for his questioner the precepts that concern love of neighbor: “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.” Finally Jesus sums up these commandments positively: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

“2076 By his life and by his preaching Jesus attested to the permanent validity of the Decalogue.”

Well what do you know!

“2068 **The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;**28 the Second Vatican Council confirms: “The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.”

Did you read that? You’re BOUND to keep the Ten Commandments. And it says that you attain salvation through faith AND observing the commandments. They were never done away with at the cross. How is it that you overlooked so many important references to the law during your conversion to Catholicism? Maybe you accidentally read some protestant theology and confused it with being roman catholic?

“2072 Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.”

They are IMMUTABLE, meaning “not capable of or susceptible to change”. Also, “primordial” means fundamental or “existing in or persisting from the beginning”. The Catholic teaching on this matter is clear…. But apparently your idea of them is not.

…continued.**

 

[amun]

You claim that the keeping of Sunday is “optional” and that we are not really bound to any law obligating us to keep it. This is necessary if you are going to uphold your teaching that we are no longer bound to a law. However, the catechism contradicts what you are saying:

“2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.”

One of the main titles on the page calls it “The Sunday obligation”.

“2190 The sabbath, which represented the completion of the first creation, has been replaced by Sunday which recalls the new creation inaugurated by the Resurrection of Christ.”

Who replaced it? Certainly there’s no mandate in scripture for this. The catholic church changed it, and that’s why they say “has been replaced”.

“2192 “Sunday . . . is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church” (CIC, can. 1246 # 1). "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass" (CIC, can. 1247).”

Just this alone would suffice, but I’ll quote more!

“2193 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound . . . to abstain from those labors and business concerns which impede the worship to be rendered to God, the joy which is proper to the Lord’s Day, or the proper relaxation of mind and body" (CIC, can. 1247). “

Notice again, it is saying that faithful Christians are BOUND to be keeping Sunday by refraining from labor sand business concerns. The very same as what the 4th commandment (catholic 3rd) tells us!

“2195 Every Christian should avoid making unnecessary demands on others that would hinder them from observing the Lord’s Day.”

“2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason **the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.**119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.”

Wow, did you read that? Catholics are OBLIGED and BOUND to attend Mass on Sunday in particular, and other holy days. And those who fail to participate in the Eucharist on particularly Sunday, are committing a GRAVE SIN. So the catholic church DOES believe that violating the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy is sinning…, the only difference is that they stuck a different day in there, a day that is not sanctioned by scripture but by their OWN mandate.

The next title says: “A day of grace and rest from work”
“2184 Just as God "rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done,"121 human life has a rhythm of work and rest. The institution of the Lord’s Day helps everyone enjoy adequate rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social, and religious lives.”

Even the official catechism recognizes the correlation between GOD resting on the seventh day and the concept of refraining from work on Sabbath. They just arbitrarily ascribe it to Sunday now (and call it The Lord’s Day). What a contrast from what you’ve been telling me! Could it be that you’ve never actually read the catechism?

I think it’s time you start finding out what your church believes!

…continued.

 

[amun]

Some additional comments I’d like to make:

For someone who is so bent against the keeping of a legalistic law, it’s astounding that of all the denominations you would choose to be a part of, you would join the one that has represented itself as the most works oriented in the entire Christian world. But even more amazing is the fact – which I have demonstrated by showing you what the official catechism says — that you are using fundamentally PROTESTANT arguments in order to argue against the law and the Sabbath directly contrary to what your own church teaches.

Let’s just take Martin Luther for example. The entire controversy surrounding His rejection of the catholic church was based on the fact that he was trying to show scripturally that we are saved by GRACE and not WORKS as propagated by the Catholic Church – that was the primary basis for his separation and why the catholic church hated and persecuted him so much. And then nowadays, Catholics have the gall to pretend that they are the ones pushing Grace and not works? Then again, it’s possible that most of them are just not informed at all about their catholic roots.

One thing you may not realize is that if it had been up to the Catholic Church NOBODY would even be studying the Bible right now – and the laity would still be in darkness and ignorance and unable to think for themselves… while the clergy would be doing all of the scriptural interpretation. Thousands of Christians were persecuted and killed simply because they wanted to read the Bible in their own tongue. You wouldn’t even be able to have this debate with me if it weren’t for the reformers who sacrificed their lives for the Bible.

One of the greatest enemies to religious freedom has been the catholic church, and this is an undisputed fact of history.
Pope Gregory XVI’s encyclical letter of August 15, 1832 “Marar Vos”, said:

“This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it.”

That’s amazing! Goes right against the constitution!

Also, is it not true that included in a bishop’s oath are these words?: “Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said lord [the pope], or his aforesaid successors, I will to my utmost persecute and oppose.”

Sounds to me like they haven’t changed from the middle ages. But do you know WHY they will not make a formal apology for what the church did in the medieval and renaissance world? Because they believe the church to be infallible, therefore they choose to put the responsibility on merely “people within the church” – as though it wasn’t the church itself. This is their way of appearing apologetic for the atrocities committed in times past, without actually confessing that they did wrong.

 

[Delraek]

Some additional comments I’d like to make:

For someone who is so bent against the keeping of a legalistic law, it’s astounding that of all the denominations you would choose to be a part of, you would join the one that has represented itself as the most works oriented in the entire Christian world. But even more amazing is the fact – which I have demonstrated by showing you what the official catechism says — that you are using fundamentally PROTESTANT arguments in order to argue against the law and the Sabbath directly contrary to what your own church teaches.

Let’s just take Martin Luther for example. The entire controversy surrounding His rejection of the catholic church was based on the fact that he was trying to show scripturally that we are saved by GRACE and not WORKS as propagated by the Catholic Church – that was the primary basis for his separation and why the catholic church hated and persecuted him so much. And then nowadays, Catholics have the gall to pretend that they are the ones pushing Grace and not works? Then again, it’s possible that most of them are just not informed at all about their catholic roots.

One thing you may not realize is that if it had been up to the Catholic Church NOBODY would even be studying the Bible right now – and the laity would still be in darkness and ignorance and unable to think for themselves… while the clergy would be doing all of the scriptural interpretation. Thousands of Christians were persecuted and killed simply because they wanted to read the Bible in their own tongue. You wouldn’t even be able to have this debate with me if it weren’t for the reformers who sacrificed their lives for the Bible.

One of the greatest enemies to religious freedom has been the catholic church, and this is an undisputed fact of history.
Pope Gregory XVI’s encyclical letter of August 15, 1832 “Marar Vos”, said:

“This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it.”

That’s amazing! Goes right against the constitution!

Also, is it not true that included in a bishop’s oath are these words?: “Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said lord [the pope], or his aforesaid successors, I will to my utmost persecute and oppose.”

Sounds to me like they haven’t changed from the middle ages. But do you know WHY they will not make a formal apology for what the church did in the medieval and renaissance world? Because they believe the church to be infallible, therefore they choose to put the responsibility on merely “people within the church” – as though it wasn’t the church itself. This is their way of appearing apologetic for the atrocities committed in times past, without actually confessing that they did wrong.

 

[Delraek]

Some additional comments I’d like to make:

Let’s just take Martin Luther for example. The entire controversy surrounding His rejection of the catholic church was based on the fact that he was trying to show scripturally that we are saved by GRACE and not WORKS as propagated by the Catholic Church – that was the primary basis for his separation and why the catholic church hated and persecuted him so much. And then nowadays, Catholics have the gall to pretend that they are the ones pushing Grace and not works? Then again, it’s possible that most of them are just not informed at all about their catholic roots.

Martin Luther specifically said “faith alone”, NOT “grace alone”! (sola fide and sola scriptura) The Catholic Church has always taught faith AND works - which can only come from God’s Grace. The Catholic Church has no problem with the statement that we are saved by “Grace alone”. Also, Luther even attempted to remove books from the NT (James was one…) to support his theology without success.

One thing you may not realize is that if it had been up to the Catholic Church NOBODY would even be studying the Bible right now – and the laity would still be in darkness and ignorance and unable to think for themselves… while the clergy would be doing all of the scriptural interpretation. Thousands of Christians were persecuted and killed simply because they wanted to read the Bible in their own tongue. You wouldn’t even be able to have this debate with me if it weren’t for the reformers who sacrificed their lives for the Bible.

If it wasn’t for the Catholic Church, you wouldn’t have a Bible! The monks in Ireland preserved the Holy Book while the barbarians were burning down the chuches in Europe. And it was the Catholic Church (with the help of the Holy Spirit) that decided which 27 books belonged in the NT. Read about the councils of Cathage and Hippo in the 4th century… Also, your false comment on thousands of Christians being persecuted and killed because they wanted to read the Bible is baloney. During the time of the reformation all written documents were in Latin and anyone who could read learned to read in Latin. Before the invention and utilization of the printing press, anyone who wanted to read the Bible but couldn’t afford one because they were still all hand-copies, could go to a Church or University to read it.

It’s really sad how so many Protestants have misrepresented history in order to justify the reformation. If it was truly justified, changing historical facts would not be necessary.

 

[amun]

Martin Luther specifically said “faith alone”, NOT “grace alone”! (sola fide and sola scriptura) The Catholic Church has always taught faith AND works - which can only come from God’s Grace. The Catholic Church has no problem with the statement that we are saved by “Grace alone”. Also, Luther even attempted to remove books from the NT (James was one…) to support his theology without success.

Saved by grace THROUGH faith. The point is that he was trying to combat the fact that the church was emphasizing WORKS as a means of attaining salvation. History attests to this fact. The catholic church may have writing talking about how we are saved by faith through grace, but they have been notorious for being a works-oriented religion. The catholic church may admit that there were anonymous “improprieties” committed by some during the Middle Ages and time of Luther concerning the indulgances, but if you look at catholic doctrine, they STILL BELIEVE in the indulgances.

If it wasn’t for the Catholic Church, you wouldn’t have a Bible! The monks in Ireland preserved the Holy Book while the barbarians were burning down the chuches in Europe. And it was the Catholic Church (with the help of the Holy Spirit) that decided which 27 books belonged in the NT. Read about the councils of Cathage and Hippo in the 4th century… Also, your false comment on thousands of Christians being persecuted and killed because they wanted to read the Bible is baloney. During the time of the reformation all written documents were in Latin and anyone who could read learned to read in Latin. Before the invention and utilization of the printing press, anyone who wanted to read the Bible but couldn’t afford one because they were still all hand-copies, could go to a Church or University to read it.

Are you going to deny that the catholic church did not want the Bible written or understood in the common tongue of many different languages? You would have us believe that the reformation didn’t happen! That Tyndale didn’t exist, nor any of the other translaters and reformers!

The catholic church may have had its part in preserving the Bible, but that does NOT change the fact that they did NOT WANT SCRIPTURE to be READ or UNDERSTOOD by common people. They persecuted and killed on this matter.

Do you admit that the Catholic Church was wrong for doing that?
They won’t admit it, because they believe themselves to be infallible, and any references to an apology for a supposed “dark chapter” is riddled with ambiguity and excused as “improprieties” committed by “members of the church”.

It’s really sad how so many Protestants have misrepresented history in order to justify the reformation. If it was truly justified, changing historical facts would not be necessary.

Actually, the catholic church has done remarkably well keeping MOST people in ignorance on what truly happened. Are you going to try to deny that thousands upon thousands were burned at the stake for refusing to accept (or go against) catholic teaching?

In any event, I’m not meaning to stray off of the topic at hand (the sabbath and the law), I just wanted to make some extra commentaries that don’t really demand a response.

 

[Church_Militant]

Are you going to deny that the catholic church did not want the Bible written or understood in the common tongue of many different languages? You would have us believe that the reformation didn’t happen! That Tyndale didn’t exist, nor any of the other translaters and reformers!

“Before Gutenberg printed the first Bible around 1455 (A Catholic version in Latin with 73 books) there were already popular translations of the Bible and the Gospels in English, Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemiam, and Hungarian.”

"There were nine editions of the Bible in German by the time Martin Luther was born in 1493 and twenty-seven editions in German before Luther published his own in 1520.

Before the first Protestant Bible was printed, more than 600 editions of the Catholic Bible had been printed in Europe, of which 198 were in the languages of the people."

(Where We Got the Bible, pages 69,74,& 75)

The catholic church may have had its part in preserving the Bible, but that does NOT change the fact that they did NOT WANT SCRIPTURE to be READ or UNDERSTOOD by common people. They persecuted and killed on this matter.

And we all KNOW that the Protestants are just as pure as the driven snow, right? I can hear the cries from my Irish Catholic ancestors from their graves!

Do you admit that the Catholic Church was wrong for doing that?

Nope, not a chance because they were errant and corrupted translations that the average person, if they could read at all, would have been unqualified to catch.

I bet you have a Catholic Bible in your home right now.

They won’t admit it, because they believe themselves to be infallible, and any references to an apology for a supposed “dark chapter” is riddled with ambiguity and excused as “improprieties” committed by “members of the church”.

This is fairly typical SDA propaganda.

1. Doesn’t know the difference between infallibility and impeccability.
2. The SDA will never admit that their own publications like “The Great Controversy” is absolutely fraught with historical misrepresentations and Biblical misinterpretations that they attempt pass off as fact. (I filled the margins of the first 5 chapters of a copy with notes on all I personally found before I threw it away in disgust.)
3. “Dark chapter”? How about the repeated date setting for the return of Christ in total contravention of the Word of God? Something the SDA doesn’t want to deal with.

Actually, the catholic church has done remarkably well keeping MOST people in ignorance on what truly happened.

Bunkum! History hasn’t been rewritten as a work of fiction as it is in SDA literature. (As I pointed out above) Talk about keeping people ignorant!

Are you going to try to deny that thousands upon thousands were burned at the stake for refusing to accept (or go against) catholic teaching?

By all means provide the links for documentation. You won’t do it because this is just another rhetorical SDA a-C tactic. Like saying “everybody knows”, when in fact the only statements are from SDA sources that create a fictional history for propaganda purposes. I know…remember, I read TGC!

In any event, I’m not meaning to stray off of the topic at hand (the sabbath and the law), I just wanted to make some extra commentaries that don’t really demand a response.

No problem because in so doing you exposed yourself to factual refutation. As usual with the SDA, the only real difficulty is deciding which fiction to refute first. :coffeeread:

 

[amun]

^^^^^

1. It’s obvious that you would have us believe that there was no inquisition at all.
2. My sources are not SDA, they are well-documented historically – SDAs do reference these events, however.
3. Protestants who engaged in hostile acts in times of old toward catholics were not innocent at all, however, there is a clear dinstinction between loosely-defined protestants committing acts of crime for which other protestants are not accountable VS the centralized catholic church, which sanctioned by their pretended divine authority (The pope and cardinals) cruel and torturous acts and punishments against other Christians as though it were the WILL of God. It’s called, OFFICIALLY MANDATING slaughter vs angry protestants comitting terrible acts that do not represent their leaders. The catholic LEADERSHIP sanctioned slaughter and torture the compelling of people’s conscience through force. Do you want to dispute this?

The Catholic church will never admit error - infallible means: “incapable of error : unerring”–merriam webster. Therefore they foist responsibility on “members” of the church in order to avoid repenting. Do you know why? Because the catholic church would still do as they did in the middle ages if they were given the power again-- the only reason why they don’t is because they don’t have the arm of the state to do it.

The “impeccability” vs “infallibility” argument is a classic example of careful semantics.

What is the “CHURCH”? The church is the people of God. If the leadership is corrupt, the church is corrupt. The fate of Israel was determined by the leaders. God is no respector of persons – no one is locked into some special favor with God. God’s blessing to any church or people is CONDITIONAL on whether or not they are faithful to Him. It happened to ancient Israel, and it can happen to any other church claiming to be doing God’s will.

 

[famousjonnyk]

“1. It’s obvious that you would have us believe that there was no inquisition at all.”

• No, what I’m saying is the Inquisition was against heretical Catholics, not non-Catholics.
  “2. My sources are not SDA, they are well-documented historically – SDAs do reference these events, however.”

Bologna.

"2. Protestants who engaged in hostile acts in times of old toward catholics were not innocent at all, however, there is a clear dinstinction between loosely-defined protestants committing acts of crime for which other protestants are not accountable VS the centralized catholic church, which sanctioned by their pretended divine authority (The pope and cardinals) cruel and torturous acts and punishments against other Christians as though it were the WILL of God. It’s called, OFFICIALLY MANDATING slaughter vs angry protestants comitting terrible acts that do not represent their leaders. The catholic LEADERSHIP sanctioned slaughter and torture the compelling of people’s conscience through force. Do you want to dispute this? "

• YES I DO! So, we cant blame Protestant Churches for John Calvin’s actions, but we can hold the Catholic Church responsible for the actions of Catholic monarchs, and bishops acting disobedient to the Papacy during the Inquisition? Your logic is silly. Show me the “OFFICIAL MANDATE” of slaughter that the Papacy issued. Good luck…because the calling of an inquisition is not an Official mandate to slaughter.

"The Catholic church will never admit error - infallible means: “incapable of error : unerring”–merriam webster. Therefore they foist responsibility on “members” of the church in order to avoid repenting. Do you know why? Because the catholic church would still do as they did in the middle ages if they were given the power again-- the only reason why they don’t is because they don’t have the arm of the state to do it. "

• It’s quite clear that you attack Papal Infallibility without first understanding the doctrine. Papal Infallibility is NOT Papal Impecability. Please learn the doctrine before jumping to conclusions.

The “impeccability” vs “infallibility” argument is a classic example of careful semantics.

• No, it’s an example of Protestant attacks against the Church without merit. The Catholic Church does not teach that it’s members do not sin. Please show me the document that the Church has ever taught its actions will always be without error. Teaching infallibly and being sinless are two very different matters.

“What is the “CHURCH”? The church is the people of God. If the leadership is corrupt, the church is corrupt.”

• Lets assume your reasoning is correct. Then you make Jesus Christ a liar. Jesus said the Gates of hell cannot prevail against his Church. You claim that the leadership of the original Church is totally corrupt. Therefore, the gates of death overcame the Church. So who’s right…you, or Christ? I think I’ll believe the Bible over your perverted doctrine.

“The fate of Israel was determined by the leaders.”

• So God fails to keep his promises to Israel because the went into sin? You need to reread your Bible.

“God is no respector of persons – no one is locked into some special favor with God.”

• At this point I’m just wondering if you’ve ever read the Bible. God does choose special people. Abraham, St. Paul, Moses…the list goes on.

“God’s blessing to any church or people is CONDITIONAL on whether or not they are faithful to Him. It happened to ancient Israel, and it can happen to any other church claiming to be doing God’s will”

• But it can’t happen to Jesus Christ’s Church. Why? Because Jesus is always faithful to the Father, and the Mediator of the Covenant. Jesus’ Church can’t go into error when He is the Head of it. Jesus established one church…the Catholic Church. He’s the Bridegroom and the Church is the Bride. Jesus is not a male whore who marries several times over. That’s exactly your SDA Philosophy…Jesus was the head of this church, then that church, then another church…until he got to his “infallible” SDA Church.

 

[amun]

• No, what I’m saying is the Inquisition was against heretical Catholics, not non-Catholics.

Then why did they persecute those who didn’t want to be catholic? You display a total ignorance of basic history.

Bologna.

k. lol

• YES I DO! So, we cant blame Protestant Churches for John Calvin’s actions, but we can hold the Catholic Church responsible for the actions of Catholic monarchs, and bishops acting disobedient to the Papacy during the Inquisition? Your logic is silly. Show me the “OFFICIAL MANDATE” of slaughter that the Papacy issued. Good luck…because the calling of an inquisition is not an Official mandate to slaughter.

Like I said, protestants acted as dispersed individuals and groups not as a centralized church which committed many of these acts under the authority of the POPE and catholic leaders.

I’m not referring to disobedient actions committed by catholics, I’m referring to the OBEDIENT ones, the ones ORDERED by the POPE himself. Just one TINY example that comes to mind is Pope Innocent III’s order to extinguish the albigenses because of their “heresy”. Many of these official persecutions have been documented very well in historical books. Has the catholic church admitted that they were WRONG for doing this? NO! And the reason is because they do not believe that they did wrong – they would do it again if they had the power again.

Are you telling me that all of the people that the catholic church burned at the stake because of “heresy” was done without the knowledge or sanction of the leadership? How can you even say such a thing?

• No, it’s an example of Protestant attacks against the Church without merit. The Catholic Church does not teach that it’s members do not sin. Please show me the document that the Church has ever taught its actions will always be without error. Teaching infallibly and being sinless are two very different matters.

But I’m not referring to members of the church sinning, I’m referring to the actual LEADERSHIP, the people who represent the church itself. Why don’t THEY admit that their leadership of the past sinned? Because they don’t believe they did! You obviously don’t either.

• Lets assume your reasoning is correct. Then you make Jesus Christ a liar. Jesus said the Gates of hell cannot prevail against his Church. You claim that the leadership of the original Church is totally corrupt. Therefore, the gates of death overcame the Church. So who’s right…you, or Christ? I think I’ll believe the Bible over your perverted doctrine.

Why would I be calling Jesus a liar? I completely agree that the church of christ will prevail over hell. The “church” is the PEOPLE OF GOD, those who are faithful to God, it’s not a building or an organization. The way you determine who is the true church (people of God) is whether or not they are faithful to him…, You say that the catholic church is the true church, but if they aren’t willing to admit that they committed past sins as a leadership, then how can they be be the people of God??? True faithful christians will admit when they’ve done wrong. What makes you think that the catholic church is the original church that christ founded anyway? Because the pope SAID SO? lol

“The fate of Israel was determined by the leaders.”

• So God fails to keep his promises to Israel because the went into sin? You need to reread your Bible.

Their being “god’s people” was conditional on their faithfulness. He gave them opportunity after opportunity. When the leadership said “his blood be upon our heads and our children” they separated themselves from being God’s people as a WHOLE. That doesn’t mean that Jews can’t be saved, because of course they can…just like anyone else who is faithful to God. Salvation doesn’t come through any specific denomenation, it comes from faithfulness to God.

• At this point I’m just wondering if you’ve ever read the Bible. God does choose special people. Abraham, St. Paul, Moses…the list goes on.

That’s what I said! But if they reject him and do not obey then they automatically remove themselves from being his people. Are you saying that God is going to keep giving special opportunities to a people that want to forsake him? That makes no sense! Abraham was God’s servant as long as he was faithful to Him. That doesn’t mean that God’s people don’t make mistakes…but if they persistently and consistently reject Him, then they can’t be given special favors anymore.

• But it can’t happen to Jesus Christ’s Church. Why? Because Jesus is always faithful to the Father, and the Mediator of the Covenant. Jesus’ Church can’t go into error when He is the Head of it.

No no. Christ’s CHURCH is THOSE WHO ARE FAITHFUL TO HIM. Not an organization, not a structure but PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALS. Anyone can choose to remove themselves from christ as their leader. Doesn’t matter if it’s adventists or catholics.

ACTIONS speak louder than words. Those who are the people of God will reflect biblical teaching – not man made rules and customs.

Jesus established one church…the Catholic Church.

http://mac.honan.net/uploaded_images/orly-750116.jpg

That’s exactly your SDA Philosophy…Jesus was the head of this church, then that church, then another church…until he got to his “infallible” SDA Church.

lol, no! The SDA church is not infallible at all! In fact, the organization as a whole has gotten quite corrupt, just like every other church. Just because I think the SDA church has a very balanced understanding of a lot of doctrines does not mean that they can also FAIL to live up to the knowledge. Just because you know the truth doesn’t mean you can’t reject it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I have to admit, the Seventh-day Adventists I’ve met have certainly behaved in a Christian manner.

However, they also invented YE creationism, which has been a plague on America.

 

[Church_Militant]

I have to admit, the Seventh-day Adventists I’ve met have certainly behaved in a Christian manner.

This has never been my experience. Have you read E.G. White’s book “The Great Controversy”? I got through the first 5 or 6 chapters before I threw it in the trash, having filled the margins with copious notes that filled every bit of space, on unscriptural statements, historical misinformation, and outright lies about the Catholic Church.

The SDAs that I have encountered have been all smiley until I say I’m Catholic and then the rhetorical anti-Catholic propaganda breaks loose. They really don’t like it when you can answer them with both scripture and facts.

However, they also invented YE creationism, which has been a plague on America.

I agree with you about that!

 

[amun]

However, they also invented YE creationism, which has been a plague on America.

Are you suggesting that answersingenesis.org and trueorigin.org are SDA? There are a host of protestants that believe in young earth creationism…

---

This has never been my experience. Have you read E.G. White’s book “The Great Controversy”? I got through the first 5 or 6 chapters before I threw it in the trash, having filled the margins with copious notes that filled every bit of space, on unscriptural statements, historical misinformation, and outright lies about the Catholic Church.

You mean statements that EGW has made about catholics like this:

“It is true that there are real Christians in the Roman Catholic communion. Thousands in that church are serving God according to the best light they have. They are not allowed access to his Word, and therefore they do not discern the truth. They have never seen the contrast between a living heart-service and a round of mere forms and ceremonies. God looks with pitying tenderness upon these souls, educated as they are in a faith that is delusive and unsatisfying. He will cause rays of light to penetrate the dense darkness that surrounds them. He will reveal to them the truth, as it is in Jesus, and many will yet take their position with his people.” {GC88 565.2}

“This message must be given, but while it must be given, we should be careful not to thrust and crowd and condemn those who have not the light that we have. We should not go out of our way to make hard thrusts at the Catholics. Among the Catholics there are many who are most conscientious Christians, and who walk in all the light that shines upon them, and God will work in their behalf.”–Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 243.

“We should not, upon entering a place, build up unnecessary barriers between us and other denominations, especially the Catholics, so that they think we are their avowed enemies. We should not create a prejudice in their minds unnecessarily, by making a raid upon them. There are many among the Catholics who live up to the light they have far better than many who claim to believe present truth, and God will just as surely test and prove them as He has tested and proved us.”-- Manuscript 14, 1887.

She only talks against the unbiblical teachings of the catholic church as an organizational structure and never condemns catholics individually.

I have a few catholic friends myself and we get along quite well on a social level…I have never condemned them for what they believe and we have enjoyed some fun activities together.

They really don’t like it when you can answer them with both scripture and facts.

Speaking of scripture and facts, would you like to address the issues I raised concerning the sabbath and the law?

 

[Church_Militant]

You mean statements that EGW has made about Catholics like this:

Nah… more like this lie…

They are not allowed access to his Word, and therefore they do not discern the truth.

If you wish to open a thread on that allegation I’ll happily join you (as no doubt many of my Catholic brothers and sisters will) and you’ll see that this is a lie.

They have never seen the contrast between a living heart-service and a round of mere forms and ceremonies.

And then of course this one too. I can cite a lot of examples like John Paul the Great, Padre Pio, Mother Therese, St. Therese the Little Flower, Francis and Clare of Assisi and many many more.

God looks with pitying tenderness upon these souls, educated as they are in a faith that is delusive and unsatisfying.

How about this complete lie. As my testimony here shows.

He will cause rays of light to penetrate the dense darkness that surrounds them. He will reveal to them the truth, as it is in Jesus, and many will yet take their position with his people." {GC88 565.2}

Too late! We already did…it’s called the Catholic Church. [SIGN]Glory Be To God in the Highest![/SIGN]

"This message must be given, but while it must be given, we should be careful not to thrust and crowd and condemn those who have not the light that we have

.I sure can’t tell from all the times you people have contradicted scripture and wrongly predicted the return of Christ! And then of course there is that whole list of lies above, and then beyond that is all those notes I wrote in the margins of “GC”.

We should not go out of our way to make hard thrusts at the Catholics.

Cool… well it would be a good idea not to lie about our most holy faith then.

Among the Catholics there are many who are most conscientious Christians, and who walk in all the light that shines upon them, and God will work in their behalf.

"–Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 243. Well here she states the obvious, but then as they say even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

"We should not, upon entering a place, build up unnecessary barriers between us and other denominations, especially the Catholics, so that they think we are their avowed enemies.We should not create a prejudice in their minds unnecessarily, by making a raid upon them.

She probably should’ve thought of that before she wrote all that rubbish that you are not quoting.

There are many among the Catholics who live up to the light they have far better than many who claim to believe present truth, and God will just as surely test and prove them as He has tested and proved us.

"-- Manuscript 14, 1887.:yawn:

She only talks against the unbiblical teachings of the catholic church as an organizational structure and never condemns catholics individually.

This is not true… what EGW did was lie about our faith and misrepresent both history and doctrine. If an SDA told me it was raining outside, I’d have to go get wet because I sure couldn’t believe them.

I have a few catholic friends myself and we get along quite well on a social level…I have never condemned them for what they believe and we have enjoyed some fun activities together.

[SIGN]YAY…[/SIGN]

Speaking of scripture and facts, would you like to address the issues I raised concerning the sabbath and the law?

No thanks I have answered all that stuff before and I know better to waste too much time on it because you love to talk about that stuff while ignoring all the myriad of scriptural errors that you spread.

Search the forums for yourself, the threads where I refuted SDA errors are there.

 

[amun]

Nah… more like this lie…

Umm… you do realize that when she said that she was speaking more for her day and for the middle ages through the renaissance, right? Obviously today there is a much greater access to scripture without the clergy having to “interpret” — nevertheless, even today there is a general tendency for Catholics to simply go by what their leaders say rather than studying the scripture for themselves to see what it has to say.

If you wish to open a thread on that allegation I’ll happily join you (as no doubt many of my Catholic brothers and sisters will) and you’ll see that this is a lie.

You do realize that if it was up to your church nobody except for the clergy would be interpreting scripture, right? In fact, you wouldn’t even be able to have this discussion with me.

And then of course this one too. I can cite a lot of examples like John Paul the Great, Padre Pio, Mother Therese, St. Therese the Little Flower, Francis and Clare of Assisi and many many more.

It is beyond dispute that there have been many catholics who have tried their best and have served God from the heart, but the catholic church also has an endless round of works and ceremonies that should have no part of the Christian faith….Those things are totally unnecessary.

How about this complete lie. As my testimony here shows.

Some people are converted to Buddhism, others become atheists. I’m not exactly sure how your testimony is supposed to substitute an actual evaluation of the biblical record with your faith.

When it comes down to it, true faith is founded on scripture….it’s not a blind faith of our own imagining. This is true for everyone.

Well here she states the obvious, but then as they say even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

The point is that you think SDAs are anti-catholic and they are not. I believe that there are many catholics trying to do all that they know. But the catholic faith is not founded on scripture, but rather on tradition.

No thanks I have answered all that stuff before and I know better to waste too much time on it because you love to talk about that stuff while ignoring all the myriad of scriptural errors that you spread.

There’s no reason why your position on the law and the Sabbath shouldn’t be able to stand up to biblical scrutiny if indeed it is correct.

It’s a very common tactic among many protestants, but also catholics to jump around to other topics when there is a discussion on the law and the Sabbath. I would happily refute any other misunderstandings that you or anyone has on other aspects of SDA doctrine, but why not come to a solid conclusion about where we stand on this one? Otherwise I have no reason to believe that once refuted on another topic it will be more of the same kind of tactics.

So I ask you. Do you agree with what Francis and Sda2RC have said in this discussion (and if so, it’s important for you to address not only the inconsistencies that I’ve pointed out but also the contradiction from the catechism itself), or would you agree with my earlier statement that catholics should just admit that they go by a supposed authority from their own church in order to arbitrarily change rules on laws and morality? I mean, it’s really the only logical thing to do.

The problem is when catholics try to act as though their teachings are based on scripture, and when they adopt clearly protestant arguments.

Search the forums for yourself, the threads where I refuted SDA errors are there.

You need to refute our “error” on the law and the Sabbath then in order to be complete, otherwise I have no reason to believe that you satisfactorily or even correctly addressed any other alleged “error”.

 

[Church_Militant]

Umm… you do realize that when she said that she was speaking more for her day and for the middle ages through the renaissance,

right? Obviously today there is a much greater access to scripture without the clergy having to “interpret” — nevertheless, even today there is a general tendency for Catholics to simply go by what their leaders say rather than studying the scripture for themselves to see what it has to say.Hogwash… There are no such indications in her GC book. Regardless, it’s historical bunkum because the fact is that until the printing press came along in the mid 1400s copies of the Bible were hand copied which took a great deal of time. Also, until that time the literacy rate was very low and those few who could read did so in Latin. Although, there were some vernacular translations of the Bible and the Gospels, they too were hand copied and therefore both rare and slow to arrive.

Either way her statement is a gross misrepresentation of the Catholic Church. Did the Catholic Church Keep the Bible From Being Translated Into the Vernacular Languages?

You do realize that if it was up to your church nobody except for the clergy would be interpreting scripture, right? In fact, you wouldn’t even be able to have this discussion with me.

Further complete hogwash!

The New Testament establishes the authority of the Church over the Bible very clearly in 1st Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. That tells you very plainly that St. Paul knew and preached that the pillar and ground of the truth was the Church and not the scriptures.

Furthermore, he tells Timothy, “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” (2nd Timothy 2:15)

Now nowhere there does he even infer that he is telling him to study only the scriptures, and that also is significant because St. Paul’s own background is exactly that eclectic and traditional.

It is beyond dispute that there have been many catholics who have tried their best and have served God from the heart, but the catholic church also has an endless round of works and ceremonies that should have no part of the Christian faith….Those things are totally unnecessary.

In your completely biased and ill informed opinion… I have laid this error to rest in an article on my blog. Feel free to read it. It’s called, “I Find No Sacraments In the Bible" he said.”

When it comes down to it, true faith is founded on scripture….it’s not a blind faith of our own imagining. This is true for everyone.

Irrelevant to my testimony, but if you read it you see that I did indeed study the scriptures as well as the teachings of the Catholic Church and the n-C communities that I had been a very active member of. (Note also, that I made a point of even reading GC, which earned its rightful place in the nearest trash can.)

Speaking of blind faith…this from someone who is part of a community that has several times predicted the day of Christ’s return and been proved in error every time.

The point is that you think SDAs are anti-catholic and they are not.

More hogwash…The SDA makes it’s focus on bashing the Catholic faith with lies, misinformation, misinterpretation, and propaganda. Note the following my Catholic brethren.

But the catholic faith is not founded on scripture,

This is a complete untruth. The Catholic faith is based more on the Word of God than any of the n-C communities that I was ever part of. Our Mass contains more scripture on a bad day than any of the others as well. I know this both from personal experience and from the faith sharing of other Catholics. As a Catholic, I find that I know the Bible better than most all of the n-Cs that I encounter here online and in person.

but rather on tradition.

Further hogwash… The Catholic faith is based on Scripture, Tradition, and the writings of the early church which affirm the other two.

There is absolutely no scriptural basis for a faith based solely upon the Bible.
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

There’s no reason why your position on the law and the Sabbath shouldn’t be able to stand up to biblical scrutiny if indeed it is correct.

It’s a very common tactic among many protestants, but also catholics to jump around to other topics when there is a discussion on the law and the Sabbath. I would happily refute any other misunderstandings that you or anyone has on other aspects of SDA doctrine, but why not come to a solid conclusion about where we stand on this one? Otherwise I have no reason to believe that once refuted on another topic it will be more of the same kind of tactics.

It does. The early church ceased temple attendance well early on, and Sabbath worship as well. Again and again, you see references to “the first day of the week” for Christian worship. The recognized that we are not Jews anymore and that we celebrate the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and not a Jewish sabbath.

This whole issue is just another misinterpretation of scripture used as a “hook” for SDA evangelism and only the scripturally ignorant would fall for it.

There’s no jumping around with me. The SDA is dead wrong, and has been since its inception. The either ignore or misconstrue the passages of the New Testament that show that the Sabbath was replaced with the Sunday worship.

I know you’ll no want to pull out Catholic documents that say that the Church has the right to change the day of worship. So what… they simply affirm what the New Testament makes plain. That the New Testament church was not Jewish (nor SDA!) and ceased sabbath worship long before the New Testament was completed.
Revelation 1:10 I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

So I ask you. Do you agree with what Francis and Sda2RC have said in this discussion (and if so, it’s important for you to address not only the inconsistencies that I’ve pointed out but also the contradiction from the catechism itself), or would you agree with my earlier statement that catholics should just admit that they go by a supposed authority from their own church in order to arbitrarily change rules on laws and morality? I mean, it’s really the only logical thing to do.

I haven’t read all that and I don’t need to. I know better and have already shown the error of your teaching.

The Catholic Church does nothing arbitrarily. Unlike the SDA which seems to arbitrarily set and reset the date for Christ’s return, on their own supposed authority, and in flagrant contradiction of the Word of God and in fact, the very words of Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour no one knoweth, not the angels of heaven, but the Father alone

Mark 13:32 But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.

Let’s see who dances around their beliefs now…

The problem is when catholics try to act as though their teachings are based on scripture, and when they adopt clearly protestant arguments.

No, the problem is when a-Cs prevaricate as to what Catholics believe and teach and attempt to deceive people with propaganda like that remark there.

So…according to you, it is right for n-Cs to appeal to scripture in apologetic support of their beliefs, but when a Catholic does so they are suddenly using a Protestant argument?

You wish.

This is nothing but an attempt to discredit the Catholic faith and make yourself appear to be authoritative when it has already been shown that you have neither scripture nor history that supports your beliefs. The Catholic Church collected, protected, canonized, and distributed the word of God, long before the SDA was a daydream to E.G. White. Their errors begin pretty much at the same fundamental Sola Scriptura heresy and like most of the rest of the modern post reformation step children they cascade down from there except that the SDA has a somewhat larger myriad of errant teachings than most of the rest of the “MPRSC” which if anyone wants to deal with, then they need to follow the forum rules and do so with a single issue in a single thread.

You need to refute our “error” on the law and the Sabbath then in order to be complete, otherwise I have no reason to believe that you satisfactorily or even correctly addressed any other alleged “error”.

Too late…it’s already been done many many times. Not just by Catholics but by main stream n-C Christians and evangelicals.

You’d like people to think that you have not been refuted, but that’s a one trick pony that is now a dead horse being flogged by you in order to keep the rest of the wild errors of the Seventh day Adventism from being brought up and dealt with. :yawn:

 

[Michael_Francis]

Because this thread topic is too broad this thread is now closed.
MF