the SDA are they christian or not?

[Mannyfit75]

To All

I am a little puzzled that Catholics would be divided on this question. It seems that there are two opposite opinions here as to whether or not Adventists are Christians?

What is the official Catholic teaching on this? What is the official Catholic teaching as to the minimum requirements for one to be a “Christian?”

In other words; what are the “essentials” that the Catholic Church says we should be “united” on?

Anyone who is baptized in the Name of the Father, And of the Son and Of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church affirms fully that any Christian baptized in such manners are considered to be Christians.

Any other form of baptism is invalid.

Most of the Catholics here who do not acknowledge SDA as Christians is because of the many unbiblical beliefs that SDA believe in.

Such as the following:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#Christology

It has been alleged by the Christian Research Institute that traditional Adventism teaches that Christ had a sinful nature (Christian Research Journal, Summer 1988, p. 13). This is in opposition to the position given by commentators on Christology, a field which studies the divine/human nature of the biblical Christ. Adventist historians today agree that this view was common in early Adventism, although it is rejected by the mainstream church today. It is still held today by a minority of “historic Adventists” on the fringes of the church.

Ellen White wrote: “Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature…; Christ took human nature and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He took our nature and its deteriorating condition”.[10] It is also acknowledged by the CRI that there is significant disagreement in the Adventist Church as to what Ellen White meant by her statement. Many Christian faiths teach that Christ “was tempted in every way, just as we are, yet without sin” Hebrews 4:15, that he appeared on earth “in the likeness of sinful flesh” Romans 8:3 and that to some degree Christ “had to be made like His brethren in all things” Hebrews 2:17. Ellen White also wrote that “The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience”[11] Appendix B of the Adventist publication “Questions on Doctrine” deals with the writings of Ellen White in regards to the incarnation of Christ; the view most compatible with the seemingly contradictory statements seems to be that which is summarized in the aforementioned quote; that Christ’s human, or fleshly nature was that of fallen humanity, while His spiritual nature was holy and uncorrupted.[12] In other words, Christ took a fallen human nature in every respect except one; he did not have a propensity to sin.

 

[peary]

Although SDAs will challenge Catholics on just about anything and everything, the Catholic Church still recognizes that they have a valid baptism. Having a valid baptism means that they necessarily are Christian albeit a fringe sect.

 

[Protestant101]

Anyone who is baptized in the Name of the Father, And of the Son and Of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church affirms fully that any Christian baptized in such manners are considered to be Christians.

Any other form of baptism is invalid.

Most of the Catholics here who do not acknowledge SDA as Christians is because of the many unbiblical beliefs that SDA believe in.

Such as the following:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#Christology

It has been alleged by the Christian Research Institute that traditional Adventism teaches that Christ had a sinful nature (Christian Research Journal, Summer 1988, p. 13). This is in opposition to the position given by commentators on Christology, a field which studies the divine/human nature of the biblical Christ. Adventist historians today agree that this view was common in early Adventism, although it is rejected by the mainstream church today. It is still held today by a minority of “historic Adventists” on the fringes of the church.

Ellen White wrote: “Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature…; Christ took human nature and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He took our nature and its deteriorating condition”.[10] It is also acknowledged by the CRI that there is significant disagreement in the Adventist Church as to what Ellen White meant by her statement. Many Christian faiths teach that Christ “was tempted in every way, just as we are, yet without sin” Hebrews 4:15, that he appeared on earth “in the likeness of sinful flesh” Romans 8:3 and that to some degree Christ “had to be made like His brethren in all things” Hebrews 2:17. Ellen White also wrote that “The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience”[11] Appendix B of the Adventist publication “Questions on Doctrine” deals with the writings of Ellen White in regards to the incarnation of Christ; the view most compatible with the seemingly contradictory statements seems to be that which is summarized in the aforementioned quote; that Christ’s human, or fleshly nature was that of fallen humanity, while His spiritual nature was holy and uncorrupted.[12] In other words, Christ took a fallen human nature in every respect except one; he did not have a propensity to sin.

Much of Wikipedia is done now by activists; and cannot be considered as authoritative; but I am glad to see that you had mentioned Questions On Doctrine. It looks like you have simply cut and pasted your above comments from some web site; and that you in fact did not take the time to investigate that book personally. It is easy to pick a quote or two out of context and engineer it to say what you want.

The thing that I am quite disappointed in though is that I was asking for official Catholic teachings; with specific references to describe what the Catholic teaching is on what a true Christian is.

I can easily point readers to “official Catholic quotes” which would make it appear that Catholics do in fact consider me to be a heretic; or worse. Therefore; if I am not really a good enough Christian; I want to know exactly why; and I want to hear a balanced official view, with references that I can personally check out and study.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Much of Wikipedia is done now by activists; and cannot be considered as authoritative; but I am glad to see that you had mentioned Questions On Doctrine. It looks like you have simply cut and pasted your above comments from some web site; and that you in fact did not take the time to investigate that book personally. It is easy to pick a quote or two out of context and engineer it to say what you want.

The quote is from Wikipedia. It was built to make quick reference for research.

The thing that I am quite disappointed in though is that I was asking for official Catholic teachings; with specific references to describe what the Catholic teaching is on what a true Christian is.

I can easily point readers to “official Catholic quotes” which would make it appear that Catholics do in fact consider me to be a heretic; or worse. Therefore; if I am not really a good enough Christian; I want to know exactly why; and I want to hear a balanced official view, with references that I can personally check out and study.

The only which I did not copy and paste is this:

***Anyone who is baptized in the Name of the Father, And of the Son and Of the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church affirms fully that any Christian baptized in such manners are considered to be Christians.

Any other form of baptism is invalid.

Most of the Catholics here who do not acknowledge SDA as Christians is because of the many unbiblical beliefs that SDA believe in.***

Those are my comments.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also mentions Christians who are not in union with the Pope in Rome.

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in **subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church **- for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where** there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes.** Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All** who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”**272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Christians is also known as the People of God. The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1. One becomes a member of this people through faith in Christ and Baptism. This people has for its origin God the Father; for its head Jesus Christ; for its hallmark the dignity and freedom of the sons of God; for its law the new commandment of love; for its mission to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world; and for its destiny the Kingdom of God, already begun on earth.

 

[Maria1212]

One thing that might be worth exploring in a topic like this is the fact that many seem to think that a “true” “Christian” is one that believes a certain set of doctrines, the way they are “suppposed to.” I mean; is it really limited to just what we believe, as we consider just what makes us Christian?

Some Protestants and Catholics never cease to amaze me when they see one thing that another group believes or does not believe; which they say makes them “non-Christians.” Some people who know little of doctrine are much nicer people than most Church people. I think we presume too much at times when we pronounce someone “not Christian” or “a Christian;” just based upon one or two things they believe or don’t believe.

Hi Protestant 101,

To answer your question on where to find out how Catholics define what “Christian” means, I recommend you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That will give you official information. In sum, the Catholic Church regards Adventists as Christians because they believe in the Trinity. The Catholic Church does not regard Mormons as Christians because they do not believe in the Trinity, and in addition, hold other beliefs that Catholics believe to be contrary to Scripture.

You correctly pointed out that some Catholic posters here are misinformed on Adventism in general, and on the Catholic view that Seventh Day Adventism, in particular. The Catholic Church views Seventh Day Adventists as Christians because they believe in the Trinity. For more information, interested posters should check out the CAF resources on this. The Ask an Apologist section has also addressed this.

Just as Adventists posters here at CAF have sometimes misrepresented SDA teachings here at CAF, some of our Catholic posters appear to be falling into the same trap.

I recommend both Adventists and Catholics make sure they are accurately representing their Church`s views, before trying to explain those views to others. Otherwise, the poster ends up losing credibility.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[Maria1212]

**By virtue of their valid baptism, and their belief in Christ’s divinity and in the doctrine of the Trinity, Seventh-Day Adventists are both ontologically and theologically Christians. But Christians, once separated from the Church our Lord founded, are susceptible to being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14). **

The above is from:
catholic.com/library/Seventh_Day_Adventism.asp

 

[Protestant101]

By virtue of their valid baptism, and their belief in Christ’s divinity and in the doctrine of the Trinity,* Seventh-Day Adventists are both ontologically and theologically Christians*. But Christians, once separated from the Church our Lord founded, are susceptible to being “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14).

The above is from:
catholic.com/library/Seventh_Day_Adventism.asp

Thanks Maria1212

I appreciated your thoughtful answers here. I guess this brings me to one of my major points of concern here; and that is this:

Doesn’t there have to be something more to all this? Is that all it really takes; for us to “believe” in those 3 “essentials?” If we look at our own lives, and the people we intersect with daily; we can all say how that we know people who really do believe these three essentials; yet something is missing. It is easy to see that some are still not, in fact, Christians just because they; without reserve, believe these.

1. Baptism
2. Christ’s Divinity
3. Trinity

When I think of someone as being a true Christian; I don’t think too much of doctrine; I think of their character. A Christian is Christ-like. Therefore; I am questioning here; are these three “essentials” really all it takes to make a Christian? What else could be missing from this list? What might Catholic teaching offer us for insight here?

 

[Maria1212]

Thanks Maria1212

I appreciated your thoughtful answers here. I guess this brings me to one of my major points of concern here; and that is this:

Doesn’t there have to be something more to all this? Is that all it really takes; for us to “believe” in those 3 “essentials?” If we look at our own lives, and the people we intersect with daily; we can all say how that we know people who really do believe these three essentials; yet something is missing. It is easy to see that some are still not, in fact, Christians just because they; without reserve, believe these.

1. Baptism
2. Christ’s Divinity
3. Trinity

When I think of someone as being a true Christian; I don’t think too much of doctrine; I think of their character. A Christian is Christ-like. Therefore; I am questioning here; are these three “essentials” really all it takes to make a Christian? What else could be missing from this list? What might Catholic teaching offer us for insight here?

Hi Protestant 101,

You make a good point. I think you are actually making two different points. There is a distinct set of beliefs we ascribe to being Christian. Those include a belief in Jesus Christ. But believing in Jesus does not mean one is living their faith, or being a living example of Christianity. That is why Catholics often say there are many Catholics who won`t be in heaven. It is not enough to “pay lip service” to Jesus. Jesus wants us to live our faith. He calls us to live the Gospel. After all, we may be the only “Gospel” that someone sees. (For example, think of someone who is not literate and has never been exposed to the teachings of Jesus.)

On the other hand, I have many Mormon friends who are “model citizens” and I admire many aspects of their lifestyle very much. At the same time, I do not consider them to be Christians, even though they are very spiritual people, who are close to God, and serve as examples of how to live their faith to others. I am not “bashing” Mormonism or the LDS Church. I do not consider their beliefs to be Christian, and the Catholic Church does not consider them to be Christians as well.

Personally, my priority is to study the Word of God, do my best to follow Jesus and His teachings, and share my faith with others when appropriate. God calls us to love Him (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) with all of our strength, soul, and heart, and to love our neighbors as ourself. That is what being Christian means to me.

I am far from being the perfect Christian, and I am a sinner, but my sin does not mean I am not Christian. My sinful actions are certainly not Christ-like, but I am still Christian despite my sin.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

I think anyone would be wise to be weary of the “prophet cults” that came out of the US in the 19th century. The Millerites were a doomsday cult that, when their original prophecy failed, Ellen White retooled with “prophetic visions” into a church obessed with Saturday worship. Looking at some of the other fruits of that movement, such as David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, it’s clear to see that it can go in dangerous directions.

both the SDA and the Millerites were important influences to the development of the JWs. IF the SDA are not a cult and are considered Christian, albeit minimally, it shows how giving an inch can turn into taking a mile with JWs who are not defined as Christian by the CC.

 

[Maria1212]

both the SDA and the Millerites were important influences to the development of the JWs. IF the SDA are not a cult and are considered Christian, albeit minimally, it shows how giving an inch can turn into taking a mile with JWs who are not defined as Christian by the CC.

According to the Catholic Church, SDAs are Christian. Even non-Catholic Christians, who choose to deny the authority of the Catholic Church, can see they are Christian-based, after examining basic Adventists beliefs. While there are some “extras” like the writings of Ellen White, and whilte they have some unique interprations of Scripture, they still recognize the Bible as the written Word of God.

If you take the time to look at Adventist beliefs, while there are some big differences between Adventists and other non-Catholic Christians, they are just as Christian as most non-Catholic Christians (fellow Protestants). Both Adventists, and Protestants, claim to solely follow the teachings in the Bible. Adventists and most Protestants have very big differences in how they choose to interpret Scripture, but both Adventist and other Protestant denominations believe the Bible is the written word of God.

I also think that when discussing Adventists, it is important to distinguish between Seventh Day Adventists, Progressive Seventh Day Adventists, and other “splinter groups” within Adventism.

Moreover, the use of the term “cult” means different things to different people. I also think you have to differentiate between the Adventist Church as an institution, and between some members, who may individually, rather than collectively exhibit cult-like characteristics. For example, most people agree that members belonging to a “cult” are not able to leave freely. They face pressure and resistance. Since I am not Adventist, and never have been, I can not personally speak to this. But even if I was, my individual experience, would not suffice as evidence against the SDA church as a whole. I don`t want to derail this thread, however, but if people are interested in discussing this further, I recommend starting a new thread (unless the OP would like to continue the discussion here).

My bottom line is that the Catholic Church did not “give an inch” when pointing out that our separated Adventist brothers and sisters are fellow Christians. They have a valid baptism, believe in the Trinity, and acknowledge Jesus as the son of God, who is both human and divine. If anything, one could claim the Adventist Church “gave an inch” because early Adventists did not believe in the Trinity. They changed their teaching on this, some would say to be recognized as fellow Christians. Why they should care what other Christians think is beyond me, since they don`t recognize the authority of the Catholic Church. But again, Adventists are non-Catholic Christians, just as Protestants are.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[Protestant101]

According to the Catholic Church, SDAs are Christian. Even non-Catholic Christians, who choose to deny the authority of the Catholic Church, can see they are Christian-based, after examining basic Adventists beliefs. While there are some “extras” like the writings of Ellen White, and whilte they have some unique interprations of Scripture, they still recognize the Bible as the written Word of God.

…But again, Adventists are non-Catholic Christians, just as Protestants are.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

One of the reasons I have decided to stay on this forum as long as I have.

I does concern me some though; when I see people making certain KINDS of distinctions such as “Catholic Christian;” or “Non-Catholic Christian.”

If you knew me in person; you would soon see what I mean. If I meet someone who tells me they are a Christian; I accept that at face value; as long as they act like one; it is very rare that I would even ask them what denomination. I don’t care about those kinds of things; I just care about the person; to me; it is either Christian, or non-Christian. Does a denomination even have to be figured into the equation?

I do believe that God has very important reasons for denominations; but I guess I am asking: Can we be Christians without one?

 

[Maria1212]

Hi Protestant 101,

The reason I use the term non-Catholic Christians is because many Protestants do not think Catholics are Christians. But Catholics are Christians! I have met many Protestants who do not consider Catholics to be Christian, and have found that using the term non-Catholic Christian is a good reminder to my non-Catholic, but Christian, brothers and sisters that Catholics are also Christian.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[Maria1212]

One of the reasons I have decided to stay on this forum as long as I have.

I does concern me some though; when I see people making certain KINDS of distinctions such as “Catholic Christian;” or “Non-Catholic Christian.”

If you knew me in person; you would soon see what I mean. If I meet someone who tells me they are a Christian; I accept that at face value; as long as they act like one; it is very rare that I would even ask them what denomination. I don’t care about those kinds of things; I just care about the person; to me; it is either Christian, or non-Christian. Does a denomination even have to be figured into the equation?

I do believe that God has very important reasons for denominations; but I guess I am asking: Can we be Christians without one?

Hi Protestant 101,

To follow up with my previous post, I would also add that Catholics do not consider themselves a denomination. As you know, Catholics believe the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus. We use the term denomination for Protestants, because some of the beliefs among different Protestant groups are quite distinct. Moreover, I have found that for many of my Protestant friends, it is personally very important for them to be identified by their denomination. For example, I have a Baptist friend and an evangelical friend who feel very strongly about this. But of course, both of my friends think their Church best represtents Christianity in its truest form. That is one of the reasons they feel it is important for them to be identified by their denomination.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[Protestant101]

Hi Protestant 101,

The reason I use the term non-Catholic Christians is because many Protestants do not think Catholics are Christians. But Catholics are Christians! I have met many Protestants who do not consider Catholics to be Christian, and have found that using the term non-Catholic Christian is a good reminder to my non-Catholic, but Christian, brothers and sisters that Catholics are also Christian.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

I figured that is what you likely meant. Do you agree with the idea that one can just be a Christian, without denominational qualifiers? Is that how official Catholic teaching would picture a “true” Christian; or would Catholic teaching, at some point, stick in the word “Catholic?” (as in denomination).

 

[Maria1212]

I figured that is what you likely meant. Do you agree with the idea that one can just be a Christian, without denominational qualifiers? Is that how official Catholic teaching would picture a “true” Christian; or would Catholic teaching, at some point, stick in the word “Catholic?” (as in denomination).

Dear Protestant 101,

Once again I will refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the answers you seek.

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82
An indelible spiritual mark . . .

1272
Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.83 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

In addition, I think you will find the section on Wounds to Unity of particular interest.

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

---

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”**

Continued in next post…

 

[Maria1212]

Hi Protestant 101,

I would also like to refer to an additional section in the Catechism of the Catholic Church with regard to non-Catholic Christians.

838 “The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”

I know it is hard for some non-Catholics to undestand why Catholics do not regard themselves as “just another denomination.” The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ started, and even though some non-Catholics disagree, we can`t separate non-Catholic Christians from the Catholic Church, even when those non-Catholic Christians themselves think of themselves as completely separated, and even when they prefer to be called that. In other words, Catholics believe non-Catholic Christians are in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church, as cited above.

So yes, Catholics believe one can still be Christian, and be non-Catholic, but we don`t believe non-Catholic Christians have the fullness of faith. It is like having a piece of cake rather than the whole cake. That is a poor analogy but hopefully it will make sense.

I have cited bits and pieces of the CCC but it makes the most sense when you read the two sections as a whole. But the bottom line is that the Catholic Church regards non-Catholic Christians as still Christians! And that includes Seventh Day Adventists!

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[peary]

I do believe that God has very important reasons for denominations; but I guess I am asking: Can we be Christians without one?

He does…to reveal to us why it is important to remain in unity in ONE Lord, ONE Faith, ONE doctrine, ONE Eucharist, and ONE Church.

 

[Maria1212]

He does…to reveal to us why it is important to remain in unity in ONE Lord, ONE Faith, ONE doctrine, ONE Eucharist, and ONE Church.

Jesus prayed at the hour of his passion to his Father for the unity of his disciples. He prayed that “They may all be one. As you Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us…so that the world may know you have sent me.”

As the Catechism points out, the desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.

Sincerely,

Maria1212