Seventh-Day Adventists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Antaus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Antaus

Guest
First I would like to say that I am an SDA, I have been my whole life I’m not here to start arguments, point fingers, or make accusations. I just wanted to ask some questions about something I saw on your forum.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12043

Here it talks about Doug Batchelor and his attacks on the Catholic Church, little hard to deny they are attacks, but that’s not what I want to talk about. Some members in the thread accused him of half-truths, manipulation of the truth, and other things. I would like to know if someone can specifically point out these falsehoods in detail. Not just what was talked about, but others if they can. The reason I’m asking is because I’m curious if someone can point out anything he has said that is in conflict with the bible. I use the King James Version of the bible.

Now bear in mind in that I’m not the type who accepts anything just because someone says it, I question beliefs all the time, especially my own. If there’s a belief spoken of, I usually ask why, where is it in the bible, cite a source. I would be interested to hear what people think is wrong with the SDA faith.
 
Antaus said:
First I would like to say that I am an SDA, I have been my whole life I’m not here to start arguments, point fingers, or make accusations. I just wanted to ask some questions about something I saw on your forum.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12043

Here it talks about Doug Batchelor and his attacks on the Catholic Church, little hard to deny they are attacks, but that’s not what I want to talk about. Some members in the thread accused him of half-truths, manipulation of the truth, and other things. I would like to know if someone can specifically point out these falsehoods in detail. Not just what was talked about, but others if they can. The reason I’m asking is because I’m curious if someone can point out anything he has said that is in conflict with the bible. I use the King James Version of the bible.

Now bear in mind in that I’m not the type who accepts anything just because someone says it, I question beliefs all the time, especially my own. If there’s a belief spoken of, I usually ask why, where is it in the bible, cite a source. I would be interested to hear what people think is wrong with the SDA faith.
Click to expand...
Antaus - the thread that you reference is 51 pages long so it was discussed in some detail. Is there a specific question or two that you want to know about…? Then we could move on to more…

This would make responses faster and easier.
 
Welcome Antaus!
I attended the SDA denomination for a few years before converting to Catholicism. I met a lot of very kind people there who were focused on leading intentionally holy lives.

I don’t know about the David Haus discussion, but I am aware of some of the “half-truths, manipulation of the truth, and other things,” just from the sermons that I have sat through. I’d be happy to try to explain some of it, but this might not be the right thread…

One thing, which to me is foundational, may not appear to relate immediately to the topic, but I think it should be addressed.

Antaus, you have mentioned using the bible as a final authority. And the bible IS the inspired, inerrant word of God. But authority comes from the top, down. A non-authority cannot declare the authority of something greater than it and command obedience to it.

Through the Holy Spirit, Church Councils established the canon of scripture and commanded obedience to it; if they did not have the authority to declare these kinds of things and command the obedience of the faithful, then I am not bound by their conclusions about the authority and inerrancy of scripture. If the Church DID have the authority from God to do these things, then I must obey the Catholic Church, and not just follow their bible in isolation from the rest of Catholic teaching.
 
Assuming that the 2004 thread correctly states Mr. Batchelor’s arguments, they are simply nonsense.

Pope John Paul II never ‘claimed to take the place’ of Christ. The Emperor Constantine didn’t change the Lord’s Day to Sunday, that happened in apostolic times to honor the day of our Lord’s Resurrection and to distinguish Christianity from Judaism.

See:

“What about the Seventh-Day Adventist claim that the sabbath shouldn’t have been changed to Sunday?”
catholic.com/quickquestions/what-about-the-seventh-day-adventist-claim-that-the-sabbath-shouldnt-have-been-change
 
From the other thread:
Mr. Batchelor said he read the book Crossing the Threshold of Hope written by his Holiness John Paul II. In the book it says:"Confronted with the Pope, one must make a choice. The leader of the Catholic Church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers), The Pope is considered the man on the earth who represents the Son of God, who ‘takes the place’ of the second person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity. page 3
Click to expand...
Mr. Batchelor stated this is blasphemy. He states “The Bible states that God is Holy, Holy and reverened is His Name.” He argued that the Pope is man and since he is man he is human. Human falls short in the Glory of God. He said that the pope shouldn’t even consider himself the 2nd of the trinity…
Click to expand...
Okay, I managed to locate [the text of the book online](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/Confronted with the Pope, one must make a choice. The leader of the Catholic Church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who “takes the place” of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity.) and as usual Batchelor, as do so many other SDA anti-Catholics, snatches something out of context and makes his attack.

The statement that he uses is not from Pope John Paul II at all but from Vittorio Messori, the journalist whose questions he is responding to. Batchelor seizes on this in his quest to indict the Pope and the Catholic faith, but it doesn’t work because every knowledgeable Catholic is well aware of what “Vicar of Christ” means.The Catholic Encyclopedia states:
A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honor and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ
Click to expand...
Vicar of Christ (Lat. Vicarius Christi), a title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honor and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: “Feed my lambs… Feed my sheep” (John, xxi, 16, 17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matt. xvi, 18, 19. In the course of ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St. Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus, Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ (cap. “Inter corporalia”, 2, “De trans. ep.”). He also declares that Christ has given such power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. “Quanto”, 3, ibid.), and states that it is the Roman Pontiff who is “the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ” (cap. “` Licet”, 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c. “Fundamenta ejus”, 17, “De elect.”, in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ
Click to expand...
Messori’s terminology is poor, though Catholics know what he meant. It does not, as he states “take the place of the 2nd person of the Trinity” That’s idiotic, and no pope has ever, does not now, and will never, make such a claim.

The pope is the Vicar of Christ in the same sense that Peter was when Our Blessed Lord told him to “feed my lambs…feed my sheep”.

It is absolutely true that Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ is the 2nd person of the Holy Trinity, but the Popes, from St. Peter on have only ever acted as His representative, (much as a Prime Minister) to His Church on Earth…and nothing more.
 
Mr Batchelor stated “Where in the Bible states that Sunday is the holy day of obligation?” He said “A long time ago Saturday was the holy day of obligation, it was a Catholic Tradition. Constantine wanted to satisfy the Romans so he made Sunday the holy day of obligation for the Romans because that day was assigned as the Sun God.” He continued saying that because of this the Catholic Church had two days of obligation. One day was Saturday which was Catholic Tradition to be the holy day of obligation. The 2nd day which was Sunday was made to make the Romans happy. So for many years we had 2 days of obligation and soon, Catholics broke away from tradition and assigned Sunday as the holy day of obligation. Mr. Batchelor said "Check this out, this is why Catholic Tradition falls short and that is why there is no scripture to back this up."
Click to expand...
This is a typical and basic SDA diatribe that they have trotted out for years and it has been refuted again and again. I’ll answer it with the following links from the Ask an Apologist forum, where it’s been dealt with ad nauseam.
Click to expand...
Further reading: Why do the Seventh Day Adventists attack the Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
There are quite a few places in the New Testament that specifically say that the Christian Church gathered and worshiped on the 1st day of the week since we celebrate the resurrection of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ, and not the Jewish Sabbath, since we ceased being Jews early on.
 
Antaus said:
First I would like to say that I am an SDA …

Some members in the thread accused him of half-truths, manipulation of the truth, and other things. I would like to know if someone can specifically point out these falsehoods in detail. Not just what was talked about, but others if they can. The reason I’m asking is because I’m curious if someone can point out anything he has said that is in conflict with the bible.
Click to expand...
From your words “in the thread,” I draw the conclusion that you have read it. That being so, the subject matter was discussed in detail. Should we spend our time reading this lengthly thread just to satisfy your curiosity, and to give you the opportunity to continue SDA arguments anew? Since you have read it, I also conclude that it was not to your satisfaction.
 
Mr. Batchelor said that the Catholic Church was brutal in persecuting non-believers or didn’t believe in the Catholic way. If someone was caught preaching against the Church they would capture him, tie hiim up and let him dehydrate. So once the unbeliever became thirsty they would crack glass in a small towel and soak it in water and let him swallow it so that the glass will cut off his vocal cords so he can’t preach heresy. He continued saying that the Catholic Church would bury women alive who were unbelievers and execute children right in front of the parents face.** He said it was a total of 50-70 million people executed. **He quoted this on Popes V2, p.334
Click to expand...
Okay…this is that same old lie about the Inquisition, and let’s examine his allegation (as I bolded), in the context of historical fact.
There have actually been several different inquisitions. The first was established in 1184 in southern France as a response to the Catharist heresy. This was known as the Medieval Inquisition, and it was phased out as Catharism disappeared.
Quite separate was the Roman Inquisition, begun in 1542. It was the least active and most benign of the three variations.
Separate again was the infamous Spanish Inquisition, started in 1478, a state institution used to identify conversos—Jews and Moors (Muslims) who pretended to convert to Christianity for purposes of political or social advantage and secretly practiced their former religion. More importantly, its job was also to clear the good names of many people who were falsely accused of being heretics. It was the Spanish Inquisition that, at least in the popular imagination, had the worst record of fulfilling these duties.
The various inquisitions stretched through the better part of a millennia, and can collectively be called “the Inquisition.”
Click to expand...
Now, let’s note something from the outset. The actual documented numbers are actually much much lower than what he alleges. In fact…there weren’t 70 million people in Europe and Italy during those times, so for his allegations to be true would mean that the Catholic Church literally depopulatedall of Europe and Italy with the Inquisition. We know from historical fact that that did not occur, so what does that tell us about how reliable Batchelor’s preaching is?

Certainly not our most shining time as Catholics, but the SDA claims like that prove that they are grossly inaccurate at best and specious lies at worst.

I recommend the following sources to all and sundry. 👍
 
Mr. Batchelor compared to Jezebel who married Ahab and how it repeats the prophecy about the faith of the Catholic Church. He said when Jezebel married Ahab, she made Ahab a very bad ruler in killing people and encouraging false idolatry and relates to the Catholic Church in Revelation 17:18 “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” Mr. Batchelor said that the Catholic Church is the bride which points to the city of Rome as explained by John in revelation. He said “Woman represents church that compromised biblical truth; like in Jezebel’s situation.” He continued on sayingthat in Revelation13 and Revelation 17 how they compare. He said if you read the Bible you will see on those chapters about 7 beasts with 10 horns and on the other chapter you will see a woman sitting on a beast with 7 heads with horns. He pointed outthat the Catholic Church as compared to the Jezebel reading points this out. For example, describing Jezebel on what she dressed was in purple and in scarlet. Just like the bishops in Vatican City who are dressed in pruble and scarlet. Even Pope John Paul said this when he came to vist the U.S. he invited all protestants to come back to the mother and be united as one church. Using the term mother as the church, in Jezebel’s case, office and titles are unbiblical.
Click to expand...
:yawn: Another typical SDA anti-Catholic saw. It’s easier and faster to simply offer the following links to the CA apologists refutations of this oft repeated attack.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top