Witnessing to Adventists Idea #1

  • Thread starter Thread starter adventistnomore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Finally, to simplify matters, I will repeat my principal outstanding question, in the hopes of a response:

I reviewed my original post, and would like to know which of the following four statements I made does not accurately reflect Adventist theology (these are taken almost verbatim from the original post):
1. Adventists emphasize that the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross does not complete the plan of redemption.
  1. The blood of Christ must also be applied to believers on earth and to the Heavenly Sanctuary.
  2. They also add that Christ began cleansing the Most Holy Place of the Heveanly Sanctuary in 1844.
4.Christ presents His blood before the Father to cleanse [by this I meant: cleanse through atonement, not executive punishment] the universe of sin prior to His Second Coming.These are the only four statements regarding the Adventist doctrine I made.​
 
adventistnomore said:
Finally, to simplify matters, I will repeat my principal outstanding question, in the hopes of a response:

I reviewed my original post, and would like to know which of the following four statements I made does not accurately reflect Adventist theology (these are taken almost verbatim from the original post):
1. Adventists emphasize that the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross does not complete the plan of redemption.
  1. The blood of Christ must also be applied to believers on earth and to the Heavenly Sanctuary.
  2. They also add that Christ began cleansing the Most Holy Place of the Heveanly Sanctuary in 1844.
4.Christ presents His blood before the Father to cleanse [by this I meant: cleanse through atonement, not executive punishment] the universe of sin prior to His Second Coming.These are the only four statements regarding the Adventist doctrine I made.​
Click to expand...
In post #53 I was quite clear. I said that because of what you neglected to mention; it shows you do not understand correctly the Adventist view on Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. I still hold this opinion because you do not want to address the item which I outlined as being the most important point about this doctrine.

I stated the following about Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary:
vindicates the justice of God in saving those who believe in Jesus. It declares that those who have remained loyal to God shall receive the kingdom.
Click to expand...
One of the major pitfalls of many who leave the Adventist Church for “better” “truth” is that they did not originally understand the most important points about a doctrine/s. It is sometimes, even quite common to see leaders who do not have a very good understanding of the gospel, as depicted in the doctrine of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.

Again, the reason you can be seen as not having a good understanding is because of what you left out; and what you continue to shun. There is much more to the four points you have been trying to pursue; it’s not that they are wrong; they are just stated partially, and therefore people studying this will not be left with the right view that we have of this doctrine.

It is very important to start with the main point of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary - it is to show that God is “just, and the Justifier; of them which believe in Jesus.”
 
Protestant101 said:
In post #53 I was quite clear. I said that because of what you neglected to mention; it shows you do not understand correctly the Adventist view on Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.
Click to expand...
And I will reiterate my position: the sanctuary doctrine is a complex doctrine. Adventists believe scripture develops the doctrine incrementally, and approaches its various aspects individually (judgment in Dan 7; atonement in Dan 8; Heb 8-9). Ergo, I too can approach an individual aspect of the doctrine without compromising the integrity of the entire belief. My discussion explored the sanctuary-atonement aspect of the doctrine, since the doctrine’s convergences with Catholic teaching lie there; an exploration of the doctrine’s other dimensions, however valuable, would be superfluous in that context.
 
Protestant101 said:
In post #53 I was quite clear. I said that because of what you neglected to mention; it shows you do not understand correctly the Adventist view on Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. I still hold this opinion because you do not want to address the item which I outlined as being the most important point about this doctrine.

I stated the following about Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary:

One of the major pitfalls of many who leave the Adventist Church for “better” “truth” is that they did not originally understand the most important points about a doctrine/s. It is sometimes, even quite common to see leaders who do not have a very good understanding of the gospel, as depicted in the doctrine of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.

Again, the reason you can be seen as not having a good understanding is because of what you left out; and what you continue to shun. There is much more to the four points you have been trying to pursue; it’s not that they are wrong; they are just stated partially, and therefore people studying this will not be left with the right view that we have of this doctrine.

It is very important to start with the main point of Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary - it is to show that God is “just, and the Justifier; of them which believe in Jesus.”
Click to expand...
LOL… so what your saying is that he didn’t understand the doctrine because he didn’t talk about it like you want him to?

Come on…

How can you say he doesn’t understand the doctrine based on what he didn’t say in making his point in his initial post in the thread he started. LOL Does anyone else see the absurdity in this… or is it just me?
 
adventistnomore said:
Ergo, I too can approach an individual aspect of the doctrine without compromising the integrity of the entire belief. My discussion explored the sanctuary-atonement aspect of the doctrine, since the doctrine’s convergences with Catholic teaching lie there; an exploration of the doctrine’s other dimensions, however valuable, would be superfluous in that context.
Click to expand...
Ok. We may have to agree to disagree for now on this point; however, I cannot see how the doctrine would not be compromised if one fails to assert the underlying purpose/result. “Superfluous” actually means: “Serving no useful purpose; having no excuse for being” and it is unfathomable to me how the main point of the Adventist doctrine of Christ’s ministry can possibly be “superfluous” in this context. The atonement aspect is all about God being just, and the Justifier; which the Investigative Judgment and other aspects of Christ’s ministry define very well.

While they have some similarities; atleast in phraseology used; our two respective doctrines actually do not converge very well. Using similar phrases to us does not a convergence make.

The Catholic Eucharistic services, practices and doctrine all depend upon people coming to the Priest; while our understanding depends upon people going directly to Jesus for themselves. As much as you like to try and say differently, how that Catholics do go to Jesus, “through the Priest” you cannot do two things. You cannot stop people from going to Jesus directly for themselves, because they have been doing it for years without any Priest’s “help,” and you cannot demonstrate from the Bible that the Eucharist is the only or best way to go to Jesus.

The Bible places much more emphasis on people going to God for themselves; rather than via a “Eucharist” through the Priest, or Mary or any other “Saint.”

The Adventist side of this doctrine encompasses both God’s judgement on human sin; and the supreme revelation of God’s love for sinful mankind, showing how God’s decisive action is the only way we are delivered from all the evil powers holding us in bondage. Christ’s ministry in the heavenly sanctuary is the Cornerstone of our salvation. The same cannot be said for the Eucharist.

In the Eucharist; it is all done through a “representative” or “mediator;” for which Christ has not admonished us to do; except for a very few exceptions. But there was no atonement value in those exceptions. A priest’s role as “mediator” would be no different than mine were I to pray for someone. People simply do not need a “Eucharist” because Christ alone is all sufficient.
 
SDA2RC said:
LOL… so what your saying is that he didn’t understand the doctrine because he didn’t talk about it like you want him to?

Come on…

How can you say he doesn’t understand the doctrine based on what he didn’t say in making his point in his initial post in the thread he started. LOL Does anyone else see the absurdity in this… or is it just me?
Click to expand...
LOL…You always see “absurdities.” It must be a special gift you were given??:eek:
 
Protestant101 said:
The Catholic Eucharistic services, practices and doctrine all depend upon people coming to the Priest; while our understanding depends upon people going directly to Jesus for themselves. As much as you like to try and say differently, how that Catholics do go to Jesus, “through the Priest” you cannot do two things. You cannot stop people from going to Jesus directly for themselves, because they have been doing it for years without any Priest’s “help,” and you cannot demonstrate from the Bible that the Eucharist is the only or best way to go to Jesus.
Click to expand...
If this is your understanding of Catholic eucharistic and sacerdotal theology (that we must go “through the priest” to get to God, or that the “only” way to get to Jesus is through he eucharist), no wonder you find our faith false. Perhaps you should begin exploring the Catechism, and discover the nuances and balance of Catholic theology.
 
adventistnomore said:
If this is your understanding of Catholic eucharistic and sacerdotal theology (that we must go “through the priest” to get to God, or that the “only” way to get to Jesus is through he eucharist), no wonder you find our faith false. Perhaps you should begin exploring the Catechism, and discover the nuances and balance of Catholic theology.
Click to expand...
Actually; I have a copy of the Catechism; and I know I see it’s content much differently than you; but maybe you could refer to a specific passage for discussion here? It’s a big book, and I don’t know right now what you are referring to.
 
Protestant101 said:
Actually; I have a copy of the Catechism; and I know I see it’s content much differently than you; but maybe you could refer to a specific passage for discussion here? It’s a big book, and I don’t know right now what you are referring to.
Click to expand...
Well how about this, show me the passages where you learned that we believe: “the Eucharist is the only or best way to go to Jesus.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top