Witnessing to Adventists Idea #1

[SDA2RC]

I like the way you pose a question and then supply your own answer. No one has said that you don’t understand Adventism, “because you disagree with it.” However, in the case of your post here to which I am replying, you have already proven my point that you don’t understand us at all by the subject you picked, and by the nature of your post. :tiphat:

Protestant,
I have no idea what your referring to when you say the nature of my post or the subject I picked… however, lets get to the meat of the thread…

1. The Adventist Sanctuary Doctrine

as it compares to

1. The Catholic Eucharistic Sacrifice/Intercession

Do you have any comments on that?

 

[Hellisreal]

Maybe this is why this thread never was addressed by Adventists.

They had 2 years to do it and can not.

IMHO, this is a case closed issue. They cant fight the truth.

Rome has spoken. Case closed.

 

[PaulGH]

If you will check my posts, you will see that I did not question your name or your intelligence. I questioned your understanding of Adventist doctrines. You yourself have left the opening here to discuss more than “the original topic” by calling it “idea number one;” leaving us all with the expectation of more “ideas” to come.

As I mentioned; it is with trepidation that I ask; what is idea number two? It is only fair that your understanding of Adventist beliefs be questioned here, given the nature of idea #1. If you lack a proper understanding thereof; then “idea #1” falls flat on it’s face.

I can still respect your request to only discuss “the original topic here;” but I would hope that you stop trying to pass yourself off as some kind of expert in Adventism.

Hi David (Protestant 101),

I’m just reading this thread for the first time, and I found the original post to be very interesting. However, since I do not have any in-depth knowledge of Seventh Day Adventism, I am not currently in a position to judge whether the original post accurately describes Adventist doctrine.

You have repeatedly asserted here that Adventistnomore does NOT understand Adventist teaching, and yet I have not seen you supply any examples or evidence to back up your point. Since Adventistnomore mentions that he is a former Adventist, went to an Adventist college, has read various works by Adventist theologians, etc., I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt that he indeed does know what he is talking about. That is, unless you can supply some supporting evidence to back up your statements. Can you do so, and are you willing to do so?

Paul

 

[PaulGH]

Hi David,

You also said the following…

This makes the presumption that the Catholic Church was/is the “first” Church, which the Bible literally denies.

Then, a bit later, you wrote:

You seem like someone who has done some study on both sides of the fence; but I would comment on this point that Catholic theology has utterly failed to prove where the Bible literally affirms that they were the first Church.

However, your second claim is not logically equivalent to your first one. Even if I were to grant, simply for the sake of argument, that the Bible does not affirm that the Catholic Church was the first church, that is not at all the same as saying that the Bible denies that the Catholic Church was the first church. It is theoretically possible that the Bible could neither affirm nor deny the Catholic Church’s position as the first church, and thus a lack of affirmation does not automatically imply a denial.

Therefore, if you do indeed stand by the first quote above, could you please show us where the Bible “literally denies” that the Catholic Church is the first church?

Thanks,

Paul

 

[pedja]

Maybe this is why this thread never was addressed by Adventists.

They had 2 years to do it and can not.

IMHO, this is a case closed issue. They cant fight the truth.

Rome has spoken. Case closed.

I love this part! “Case closed!”! :clapping: Hilarious!

 

[St_Violet]

For those Who believe the catholic church does not have roots to Peter , Jesus’s apostle, how can you guys atleast tell us how the Catholic Church came to be, I never usualy hear this kinda this, only claims, and when I do they happen to bring up constantine which has been debunked over and over and over.

 

[6YRSHOME]

I love this part! “Case closed!”! :clapping: Hilarious!

Since there has been no response to relevent questions I’d say its pretty accurate.

 

[adventistnomore]

Since there has been no response to relevent questions I’d say its pretty accurate.

So true. I’m still waiting for a reply to the theological substance of my post.

 

[adventistnomore]

Since there has been no response to relevent questions I’d say its pretty accurate.

Yeah… I’m still waiting for a response to my question.

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant 101 and pedja,

Rather than futily defend my credentials further, I will demand (and hope the moderator of this forum will enforce) that we only discuss the doctrinal points of that original post I wrote two years ago

Then the Forum Moderator must also “enforce” your posts where you talk about other things. You are hardly being fair or realistic. You named quite a few sources that I am not allowed to quote from if I want to try to explain the Adventist position; even including “The GC Papers,” and I don’t see how you can deny that this request/comment of your’s opens up a whole bunch of other subjects.

I am almost scared to ask what sources am I allowed to quote from?? It doesn’t matter who you have studied under while an Adventist. This alone does not make you or anyone a true Adventist; this does not automatically mean that you have a true understanding of Adventist sanctuary doctrines.

Judas was a disciple of Christ; under His direct tutelage; but did he understand the gospel? Of course not. I know that you do not understand this doctrine properly, because in your initial summary of the Adventist positions for this doctrine; you left out the most crucial part that we believe about it all. Everyone who attacks this doctrine, as you do here, does the same thing, they use the same aplogetic mantra, plagiarized from a few certain anti-Adventist cults, and followers; totally missing the boat - because they were/are waiting for the train.

I think that IF you really do understand the sanctuary doctrine from our perspective; you will be able to go back to your first poste here, re-read it, and then state it more accurately, giving “acceptable” references for those interested.

 

[adventistnomore]

You named quite a few sources that I am not allowed to quote from if I want to try to explain the Adventist position; even including “The GC Papers,”

I said: “I do not ask you to cite Andreason, Shea, G. Hasel, Holbrook, Rodriguez, Gulley, or Neall everytime you represent an Adventist position (let alone GC documents).” It’s obvious I never forbade you from using sources; I just said I don’t require it of you. I assure you that you are welcome to cite all and any sources you like.

I think that IF you really do understand the sanctuary doctrine from our perspective; you will be able to go back to your first poste here, re-read it, and then state it more accurately, giving “acceptable” references for those interested.

Let’s review… you still have failed to cite the points in my original post with which you disagree. I will be glad to defend those contested points once you identify them. This is far more efficient than rewriting the whole post.

 

[Maria1212]

I think that IF you really do understand the sanctuary doctrine from our perspective; you will be able to go back to your first poste here, re-read it, and then state it more accurately, giving “acceptable” references for those interested.

Dear Protestant 101,

After rereading your posts, I still do not understand what specifically you feel Adventistnomore misaccurately explained regarding the sanctuary doctrine. It is one thing to disagree with his opinion, but another thing to argue he is wrong, because you disagree with what he is saying.

For those of us who may not be as familiar with the doctrine as yourself, please explain to us where you feel Adventistnomore got it wrong, and why.

As a sidenote, you are correct in that Adventistnomore is not a “true Adventist.” He is Catholic. But that does not mean he does not have an accurate understanding of Adventist teaching. Please be specific where you believe he is misrepresenting your faith, and show us why he is wrong, using specific examples rather than personal opinion. That will help educate all of us.

Adventistnomore has always done an exellent job explaining Adventist beliefs to many of us on this forum, and has quickly corrected misperceptions and misunderstandings that some of us have had about Adventists. He has always explained what Adventists believe, and why. I hope you will do the same if you feel he has made an error, but opinion and disagreeing, does not make something an error.

I realize that from your standpoint, you might believe that because someone chooses to reject your belief system, they simply did not understand it properly. Because if it is right, someone so educated and logical, and open to listening to and following God`s will would not reject it, right? I recommend looking at it from a different angle. Adventistnomore could be correct, even if you believe that is not the case. Rather than assuming he is wrong, for a brief moment, consider the chance he could be right, and see if what he says makes sense, and is accurate.

Finally, the Catholic Church does not consider SDA to be a cult. But just because some Christians disagree with you, does not mean they are “anti-SDA cultists.” Let`s all try harder to treat each other with love and respect, refrain from character attacks, and stick to the topic at hand.

I look forward to continuing to learn from these forums and will continue to keep everyone in my prayers. I also recommend “praying before posting.”

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

would it not be better to simply examine their proof text in Daniel to show that it does not teach what they say it does?

 

[Protestant101]

Dear Protestant 101,

After rereading your posts, I still do not understand what specifically you feel Adventistnomore misaccurately explained regarding the sanctuary doctrine. It is one thing to disagree with his opinion, but another thing to argue he is wrong, because you disagree with what he is saying.

Finally, the Catholic Church does not consider SDA to be a cult. But just because some Christians disagree with you, does not mean they are “anti-SDA cultists.” Let`s all try harder to treat each other with love and respect, refrain from character attacks, and stick to the topic at hand.

I look forward to continuing to learn from these forums and will continue to keep everyone in my prayers. I also recommend “praying before posting.”

Sincerely,

Maria1212

Maria

Why you and others need to try to make it out to be “character attacks” when someone states that a given forum member does not understand an Adventist doctrine is beyond me. Why so defensive? I am trying to get adventistnomore to seriously think about what he wrote in that first post, and to see if he can spot any key ingredients to that doctrine that he may have missed. I actually do pray before I post here; but I find that the characterizations seem out of place. My statements about his understanding or lack thereof have nothing to do with him disagreeing with me. It has to do with the nature and content of his first post. And, I didn’t say he said something not true; I said he left something out.

I am trying to stick to the subject by requesting him to review his initial statement about the Adventist understanding of “the sanctuary doctrine;” and see if there is anything he could add to it. Perhaps, this is something he cannot do; I don’t know, but it would indicate the level of understanding. I think that’s an important point here.

 

[adventistnomore]

I am trying to get adventistnomore to seriously think about what he wrote in that first post, and to see if he can spot any key ingredients to that doctrine that he may have missed…

I am trying to stick to the subject by requesting him to review his initial statement about the Adventist understanding of “the sanctuary doctrine;” and see if there is anything he could add to it. Perhaps, this is something he cannot do; I don’t know, but it would indicate the level of understanding. I think that’s an important point here.

Protestant101,

As you and I both know, the sanctuary doctrine is intimately related to a dozen other facets of Adventist faith. I’m not going to begin an elaborate lecture on Adventist theology on this thread; this thread is not about the extent of my knowledge of Adventist theology. It is about the points I made in my original post, which gave as simple an explanation of the Adventist sanctuary doctrine as I could provide a Catholic audience.

So I repeat: if you have an objection to one of the points I made in my original post, please cite the sentence with which you take issue, and I will defend it. This is the most efficient way of proceeding.

 

[Maria1212]

Maria

Why you and others need to try to make it out to be “character attacks” when someone states that a given forum member does not understand an Adventist doctrine is beyond me. Why so defensive? I am trying to get adventistnomore to seriously think about what he wrote in that first post, and to see if he can spot any key ingredients to that doctrine that he may have missed. I actually do pray before I post here; but I find that the characterizations seem out of place. My statements about his understanding or lack thereof have nothing to do with him disagreeing with me. It has to do with the nature and content of his first post. And, I didn’t say he said something not true; I said he left something out.

I am trying to stick to the subject by requesting him to review his initial statement about the Adventist understanding of “the sanctuary doctrine;” and see if there is anything he could add to it. Perhaps, this is something he cannot do; I don’t know, but it would indicate the level of understanding. I think that’s an important point here.

Dear Protestant 101,

My post was not directed toward a specific post on this threaad, but rather was in response to multiple posts. I have noticed that some posts by some participants were aimed at discrediting the original poster, without specificly explaining what part was an “error by emmission” or somehow incorrect in a different way.

What do you feel was left out from the first post? As a Catholic learning about something new, I would like to better understand this doctrine/Adventist teaching. If a key component was missing, that is important for this particular discussion, please let us know.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Maria1212

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101,

As you and I both know, the sanctuary doctrine is intimately related to a dozen other facets of Adventist faith. I’m not going to begin an elaborate lecture on Adventist theology on this thread; this thread is not about the extent of my knowledge of Adventist theology. It is about the points I made in my original post, which gave as simple an explanation of the Adventist sanctuary doctrine as I could provide a Catholic audience.

So I repeat: if you have an objection to one of the points I made in my original post, please cite the sentence with which you take issue, and I will defend it. This is the most efficient way of proceeding.

Thankyou for your reply. You have already answered my question.

 

[adventistnomore]

Thank you for your reply. You have already answered my question.

I hope positively?

 

[SDA2RC]

Maria

Why you and others need to try to make it out to be “character attacks” when someone states that a given forum member does not understand an Adventist doctrine is beyond me. Why so defensive? I am trying to get adventistnomore to seriously think about what he wrote in that first post, and to see if he can spot any key ingredients to that doctrine that he may have missed. I actually do pray before I post here; but I find that the characterizations seem out of place. My statements about his understanding or lack thereof have nothing to do with him disagreeing with me. It has to do with the nature and content of his first post. And, I didn’t say he said something not true; I said he left something out.

I am trying to stick to the subject by requesting him to review his initial statement about the Adventist understanding of “the sanctuary doctrine;” and see if there is anything he could add to it. Perhaps, this is something he cannot do; I don’t know, but it would indicate the level of understanding. I think that’s an important point here.

Protestant,
It seems to me that your just playing games… I join in the chorus in asking you to please identify what problems you have with the original post. Maybe if you gave us some idea of what your talking about, he can help clear up his thinking. Thanks

 

[Maria1212]

Thankyou for your reply. You have already answered my question.

Protestant 101,

Now I am really confused. Please let me know what your specific question was, and in which post I can find the answer.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Maria1212