Who are the early church fathers for SDAs?

[Pythons]

As I have stated I’m not even certain if your church still considers SDA Baptism and their belief in the Trinity as valid or not. I only know what I read in the link I earlier provided from the site we are on, catholic.com. And the linked tract from this site about SDA said SDA Baptism is valid and they believe in the Trinity. Until someone shows me otherwise, I’m going to have to assume the Catholic Church still teaches that SDA Baptism is valid and that SDA believe in the Trinity. If that remains the position of the Catholic Church, as a Catholic, would you not think then the Catholic Church would know whether the SDA meaning is alien and unorthodox? So if your church still accepts SDA Baptism and its Trinitarian belief, then why would it, if it is alien? Are you saying the Catholic Church and this site are wrong if they still say the Catholic Church accepts SDA Baptism and say SDA believe in the Trinity?

I have not looked at your link yet CMatt25 but as others have stated…
…The Mormon Baptism, based off a correct formula was accepted for a time.

I can only tell you that the Creed ( and Sacred Scripture ) absolutely condemns…
…A theological affirmation which affirms that Christ was MUTABLE or SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
…I.E. that God the Son could have failed, sinned & been subsequently eternally annihilated by the Father.

I’m not sure what “tradition perspective” you are coming from but from my perspective…
…It’s as outrageous as it is heretical to suggest a teaching such as THAT.
…Is good 'ole Christian Doctrine.

I could care less what a Catholic Apologetic says that’s outside the Catechism, Creeds or Scriptures…
…And my guess is that any staff apologist here at CF would say the same thing.
…As Catholics we can make any argument we want provided we stay within the teachings of the Church.

Just so there is no misunderstanding here CMatt…
…I will quote something else for you that I would like you to read.
…Let me know if this flies in the Face of the Biblical Prophets and the Creeds or not.

Charles S Longacre
IF it were impossible for the Son of God to make a mistake or commit a sin, then His coming into this world and subjecting Himself to temptations were all a farce AND mere mockery. IF it were possible for Him to yield to temptation and fall into sin, then He MUST have risked heaven and His very existence, and EVEN all eternity. That is exactly what the Scriptures AND the Spirit of Prophecy say Christ, the Son of God did do when He came to **work out **for us a plan of salvation from the curse of sin.

IF Christ “risked all,” EVEN His ETERNAL EXISTENCE in heaven, then there was a possibility of His being overcome by sin, and IF overcome by sin, He would have gone into Joseph’s tomb and neither THAT tomb nor any other tomb would EVER have been opened. All would have been lost and HE would have suffered “eternal loss,” the loss of ALL He ever possessed &; His DIVINITY AND His humanity and heaven itself would have been "lost & eternally lost

It was possible for one of the God-head to be lost, and eternally lost - and IF that had happened, and it WAS possible to happen, “God, the Father”, would still have remained as the One and only absolute and living God, reigning supreme over all the unfallen worlds, but with all the human race blotted out of existence on this earth. The Deity of Christ’, paper presented to the Bible Research Fellowship Angwin, California January 1947, page 13 & 14)

The above should come as a shock to any educated Christian…
…Given what the Scriptures, Creeds & Catechism say about such a ‘possibility’.

THAT part of the Creed
And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, OR **subject to change **OR conversion — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

 

[Pythons]

Part 2 of the answer to CMatt25

CCC #438
Jesus’ messianic consecration reveals his divine mission, "for the name ‘Christ’ implies ‘he who anointed’, ‘he who was anointed’ and ‘the very anointing with which he was anointed’. The one who anointed is the Father, the one who was anointed is the Son, and he was anointed with the Spirit who is the anointing.’"35 His ETERNAL messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power”, "that he might be revealed to Israel"36 as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as “the Holy One of God”.

CCC #454
The title “Son of God” signifies the unique and ETERNAL relationship of Jesus Christ to God his Father: he is the only Son of the Father (cf. Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18); **he is God himself **(cf. Jn 1:1). To be a Christian, one must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (cf. Acts 8:37; 1 Jn 2:23).

Luke 2,25
And behold there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Ghost was in him. And he had received an answer from the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Christ of the Lord. And he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when his parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law, He also took him into his arms, and blessed God, and said: Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word in peace; Because my eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples

1st Peter 1,19
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled, **Foreknown indeed **BEFORE the foundation of the world, but manifested in the last times for you, Who through him are faithful in God, who raised him up from the dead, and hath given him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God

Ephesians 1,10
to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out EVERYTHING in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory

2 Timothy 1,8
Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the GOSPEL according to the power of God; Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, WHICH WAS GIVEN US in Christ Jesus BEFORE the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel

Zeph 3,5
The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will NOT do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame

There are around 100 more equally explicit statements in Scripture that absolutely back up…
…The Creed’s statement that claiming Jesus could have mutated into a sinner god is HERETICAL.
…I’ve shown my evidence to my Priest and he assured me those SDA affirmations are heretical.

Now, of course I would agree that MANY SDA’s JW’s, Christadelphians are indeed good people…
…I would even be willing to say that MANY will be in heaven - so don’t get me wrong.
…I’m saying that they are no more Trinitarian than the JW’s are.
…The JW are just open and frank they reject it.
…The JW don’t say they believe in the Trinity then turn around and pour an alien meaning into it like the SDA’s do.

 

[CMatt25]

I have not looked at your link yet CMatt25 but as others have stated…
…The Mormon Baptism, based off a correct formula was accepted for a time.

Ok then if the Catholic Church still accepts SDA Baptism as valid and no one has yet shown me where She has changed Her teaching about SDA Baptism since the CA apologetics tract I linked to was written, I will just assume the Catholic Church knows creeds and Her own catechism but that you would then believe the Catholic Church is wrong at this time if the Catholic Church still accepts SDA Baptism and SDA belief in the Trinity as valid. And will leave it at that. Peace.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Ok then if the Catholic Church still accepts SDA Baptism as valid and no one has yet shown me where She has changed Her teaching about SDA Baptism since the CA apologetics tract I linked to was written, I will just assume the Catholic Church knows creeds and Her own catechism but that you would then believe the Catholic Church is wrong at this time if the Catholic Church still accepts SDA Baptism and SDA belief in the Trinity as valid. And will leave it at that. Peace.

The argument is very simple:

-No one has claimed that the Catholic Church has changed her teaching about SDA baptism since the CA apologetics tract you linked to was written.

-Just because the Catholic Church accepts as valid the baptisms of the SDA Church doesn’t necessarily mean that the SDA Church is Trinitarian.

-One example of the problem with your argument is that the for some time, the Catholic Church accepted as valid the baptisms of the LDS Church. “Inside Mormonism”, published by Catholic Answers, says that their baptisms were accepted.

-The Catholic Church then said that LDS converts were to be conditionally baptized, then finally, and currently, LDS baptisms are not accepted as valid. Therefore, your argument doesn’t really work. I’m assuming the Catholic Church knew her creeds and her own catechism during this time period too, correct?

-The SDA fundamental that talks about the Trinity does not explicitly state belief in the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. It merely says that it is a unity of co-eternal Persons. That doesn’t necessitate the orthodox Trinity. Also, using the word “Trinity” doesn’t necessitate the orthodox Trinity. There are LDS publications that refer to the Godhead as the Trinity, yet the orthodox Trinity is obviously rejected by the LDS Church.

-It is clear from historical writings that SDA teachings on God have evolved. Many of its foundational members, including Ellen G White, were non-Trinitarian, even anti-Trinitarian. An SDA coworker of mine, prior to I even became aware of this thread, told me that they believe that the unity of the Persons is one of purpose (which is consistent with what we see historically in the SDA Church), which I then told him is very similar to the LDS belief of a unity of purpose in the Godhead. I’d be interested to read SDA writings that talk about their belief in the consubstantiality of the divine Persons.

 

[CMatt25]

The argument is very simple:

-No one has claimed that the Catholic Church has changed her teaching about SDA baptism since the CA apologetics tract you linked to was written.

-Just because the Catholic Church accepts as valid the baptisms of the SDA Church doesn’t necessarily mean that the SDA Church is Trinitarian.

-One example of the problem with your argument is that the for some time, the Catholic Church accepted as valid the baptisms of the LDS Church. “Inside Mormonism”, published by Catholic Answers, says that their baptisms were accepted.

-The Catholic Church then said that LDS converts were to be conditionally baptized, then finally, and currently, LDS baptisms are not accepted as valid. Therefore, your argument doesn’t really work. I’m assuming the Catholic Church knew her creeds and her own catechism during this time period too, correct?

Correct. And from the CA link I provided, “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.” So what I’m going to do is just wait for the Catholic Church to change Her teaching about SDA as She did on LDS and change Her teaching on SDA to catch up with and evolve into yours and Pythons’ position. In the meantime I’m cool with waiting. Peace.

 

[Pythons]

Ok then if the Catholic Church still accepts SDA Baptism as valid and no one has yet shown me where She has changed Her teaching about SDA Baptism since the CA apologetics tract I linked to was written, I will just assume the Catholic Church knows creeds and Her own catechism but that you would then believe the Catholic Church is wrong at this time if the Catholic Church still accepts SDA Baptism and SDA belief in the Trinity as valid. And will leave it at that. Peace.

That’s NOT my call CMatt, the Church may have taken the statements for face value & made that determination…
…I can only point you to WHERE the SDA’s, convict themselves of heretical teachings.

I frankly would be more interested at this point in your thoughts on the quotes I posted…
…And if those quotes, in your belief reflect a belief in the Trinity.
…Or the antithesis of the Trinity?

 

[LivingWaters7]

Correct. And from the CA link I provided, “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.” So what I’m going to do is just wait for the Catholic Church to change Her teaching about SDA as She did on LDS and change Her teaching on SDA to catch up with and evolve into yours and Pythons’ position. In the meantime I’m cool with waiting. Peace.

By “yours and Pythons’ position” you mean the position of actual, current, members of the SDA Church (as well as historical writings of SDA Church members), such as one of my coworkers (who fervently believes in the teachings of his Church, and finds joy in spreading his understanding of the Gospel). And it really has nothing to do with what the Catholic Church teaches (odd to rely on the Catholic Church (or more precisely, a Catholic apologetic organization) to define the beliefs of another, non-Catholic, church. Are you Catholic?). I’m cool with relying on reading the words of foundational members of the SDA Church, including Ellen G. White, as well as the words of actual members of the SDA Church, to understand how they view the Trinity (unless you’re saying that Catholic Answers knows better than them), and how it isn’t the same as the orthodox, traditional Trinity of consubstantiality of divine Persons.

 

[Pythons]

CMatt, if I understand his position is claiming that because he can find Catholic Apologetics sites…
…That affirm SDA’s believe in the Trinity.
…It really doesn’t matter what SDA’s define the Trinity to be, 3 gods or Ultimate God and kinda-sorta god.

Granted, many Catholics when asked to describe the Trinity could say the same thing as the SDA’s…
…The massive difference here is that the Catholic Church, does not make these kinds of claims.
…Like the SDA Church ‘officially’ makes these claims.

 

[Pythons]

CMatt, here are some other quotes to put what I’ve said in context…
…While you continue to chew on my question to you.

SDA Biblical Research Institute
“The sonship of Jesus, however, is NOT ontological, but functional. In the plan of salvation each member of the trinity has accepted a particular role”. - The Trinity In Scripture by Gerhard Pfandl, June 1999.

Ellen White, Desire of Ages page 25
God has adopted human nature in the person of His Son, and has carried the same into the highest heaven. It is the “Son of man” who shares the throne of the universe. It is the “Son of man” whose name shall be called, “Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6. The I AM is **the Daysman **BETWEEN God and humanity, laying His hand upon both.

Ellen White, Desire of Ages page 124
Never can the cost of our redemption be realized until the redeemed shall stand with the Redeemer before the throne of God. Then as the glories of the eternal home burst upon our enraptured senses we shall remember that Jesus left all this for us, that He not only became an exile from the heavenly courts, but for us took the risk of failure and eternal loss.

Ellen White, Desire of Ages page 483
However much a shepherd may love his sheep, he loves his sons and daughters more. Jesus is not only our shepherd; He is our ‘everlasting Father.’ And He says, ‘I know Mine own, and Mine own know Me, even as the Father knoweth Me, and I know the Father.’ John 10:14, 15, R. V. What a statement is this!–the only-begotten Son, He who is in the bosom of the Father, He whom God has declared to be ‘the Man that is My fellow’ (Zech. 13:7),–**the communion between Him **AND **the eternal God **is taken to represent the communion between Christ and His children on the earth!"

As demonstrated multiple times…
…Jesus is NOT, according to SDA theology, the Eternal God.

The SDA’s aggressively promulgate that the Catholic Church is the “Beast Power”…
…Headed by Lucifer himself and that at the end of days the Catholic Church.
…Will create a law which forces the world to observe Sunday as sacred.
…They teach that this is literally paying homage to Lucifer.

Thus, if you go to church on Sunday ( or any other day than Saturday )…
…You will get “the mark of the beast” and God will exclude you from heaven.

 

[CMatt25]

By “yours and Pythons’ position” you mean the position of actual, current, members of the SDA Church (as well as historical writings of SDA Church members), such as one of my coworkers (who fervently believes in the teachings of his Church, and finds joy in spreading his understanding of the Gospel). And it really has nothing to do with what the Catholic Church teaches (odd to rely on the Catholic Church (or more precisely, a Catholic apologetic organization) to define the beliefs of another, non-Catholic, church. Are you Catholic?). I’m cool with relying on reading the words of foundational members of the SDA Church, including Ellen G. White, as well as the words of actual members of the SDA Church, to understand how they view the Trinity (unless you’re saying that Catholic Answers knows better than them), and how it isn’t the same as the orthodox, traditional Trinity of consubstantiality of divine Persons.

My religious affiliation can depend on whether you ask a bishop of the Catholic Church for an answer or an apologetic organization. With regard to this one, no I am not a Catholic. But still no one has come forth to show me that the Catholic Church no longer accepts SDA Baptism and SDA belief in the Trinity as valid. Pythons has explained though that maybe the Catholic Church just takes SDA at face value in making Her determination. I confess at first glance I found that somewhat troubling considering all the religious scholars there are in the Catholic Church to make such determinations. But as I previously said, maybe in time the Catholic Church will come around to the determination you both are advocating here and change Her teaching as you have explained She did on LDS. We’ll just have to wait and see. But in the meantime I’ll just have to assume things apparently remain as they are with the Catholic Church accepting SDA Baptism and SDA belief in the Trinity. Yours and Pythons argument seems more with the Catholic Church than it is with me. Just as Pythons said, it is not his call, neither is it mine. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

CMatt, if I understand his position is claiming that because he can find Catholic Apologetics sites…
…That affirm SDA’s believe in the Trinity.
…It really doesn’t matter what SDA’s define the Trinity to be, 3 gods or Ultimate God and kinda-sorta god.

Granted, many Catholics when asked to describe the Trinity could say the same thing as the SDA’s…
…The massive difference here is that the Catholic Church, does not make these kinds of claims.
…Like the SDA Church ‘officially’ makes these claims.

Well not exactly unless the Catholic Apologetics sites match with what the Catholic Church says. My position is more along the lines that until the Catholic Church changes Her teaching, so far She is not making the claim you are. Maybe She’ll come around to your side someday. I have no way of knowing.

 

[CMatt25]

CMatt, here are some other quotes to put what I’ve said in context…
…While you continue to chew on my question to you.

Pythons, I am not chewing on your question because if as you said it is not your call to make on whether the Catholic Church accepts SDA Baptism and SDA belief in the Trinity, when your religion is listed as Catholic and mine is not, neither is it my call to determine what the Catholic Church does. God’s blessings along your faith journey and peace.

 

[Pythons]

Pythons, I am not chewing on your question because if as you said it is not your call to make on whether the Catholic Church accepts SDA Baptism and SDA belief in the Trinity, when your religion is listed as Catholic and mine is not, neither is it my call to determine what the Catholic Church does. God’s blessings along your faith journey and peace.

I simply asked you if the SDA contextual quotes about the Trinity…
…Could be configured, IN YOUR Church, to be teaching ‘The Trinity’.
…OR, if your Church authority would deem them as affirmations of something OTHER than the Trinity.

It wasn’t a trap question CMatt - it was just a straight forward question.

 

[anodos]

Well not exactly unless the Catholic Apologetics sites match with what the Catholic Church says. My position is more along the lines that until the Catholic Church changes Her teaching, so far She is not making the claim you are. Maybe She’ll come around to your side someday. I have no way of knowing.

I haven’t studied the subject as others have. My feeling is that, even if Seventh Day Adventism is NOT orthodox in its beliefs about the Trinity, the Catholic Church would rather err on the side of generosity in accepting their baptisms, at least for a while. If someone died after being baptised Adventist and it was later determined that such a baptism was no longer accepted, I believe that they would have received the baptism of desire. Even an atheist can baptize someone in an emergency, provided they use water and the name of the Trinity. Besides, the LDSs have a much stranger view of God than SDAs do; I don’t think there is much comparison.

I was baptized in a Trinitarian church that explicitly rejected “Romanist errors” in its interpretation of what baptism was. The “erring Romanists” accepted my baptism anyway. There’s a lot of leeway, I think.

 

[Pythons]

I haven’t studied the subject as others have. My feeling is that, even if Seventh Day Adventism is NOT orthodox in its beliefs about the Trinity, the Catholic Church would rather err on the side of generosity in accepting their baptisms, at least for a while. If someone died after being baptised Adventist and it was later determined that such a baptism was no longer accepted, I believe that they would have received the baptism of desire. Even an atheist can baptize someone in an emergency, provided they use water and the name of the Trinity. Besides, the LDSs have a much stranger view of God than SDAs do; I don’t think there is much comparison.

I was baptized in a Trinitarian church that explicitly rejected “Romanist errors” in its interpretation of what baptism was. The “erring Romanists” accepted my baptism anyway. There’s a lot of leeway, I think.

I’m thinking the ancient Council didn’t err when it was dogmatic in saying it is heretical…
…To affirm that God was subject to becoming a sinner and from there ceasing to exist.
…I’m thinking that’s a very big err.

Now, I agree with you that God’s mercy could easily include baptism of desire for this…
…I’m just saying I don’t think playing footsie with what the Council and Scripture say is heretical.
…Is a good thing to do, it’s especially damaging to the people who believe in it.

With all the quotes from Ellen White, her religious contemporaries and official church statements…
…There is no way out of the fact the SDA’s promulgate that Christ was subject to change into a sinner.
…The Anathema was employed on THAT very teaching.

I don’t know, does the LDS affirm that Christ could have sinned and lost His eternal existence?
…And had He sinned that loss would have come about by way of God the Father annihilating Him?
…I know the JW’s believe this as do the Christadelphians and WWCOG.
…Those groups are Arian.