Why SDAs Reject the Historic Creeds

[miz3]

Gerry Cabalo,

I am happy for you.

The fact that others like those in the Protestant Reformation saw the Papacy as the antichrist well before Ellen White was not the point I was making. Duh!

I was not asserting that Ellen White was the first to say it.

People would naturally have thought those things because to them at that time the Roman Catholic Church (Papacy) was indeed a leading candidate. They did not have the benefit of seeing the history as we do. (rise of Communism, rise of Islam, rise of atheism even though Darwin was started back then, etc.)

Ellen White and the SDA pioneers were good Protestant Reformers and as such it would be natural for them to see the Papacy in the light they did.

Like I said their position was neither new or unique. Come on Gerry read more carefully instead of popping off at the hip because you don't like something. Think a little bit before you pop off. You might find that you learn something.

Ha! Ha!

[Gerr]

Gerry Cabalo,

I am happy for you.

The fact that others like those in the Protestant Reformation saw the Papacy as the antichrist well before Ellen White was not the point I was making. Duh!

Not only did Eberhard point to the papacy as the antichrist, he also specifically claimed that the "little horn" was the papal system. And so did several Reformers. Duh!

Quote:

I was not asserting that Ellen White was the first to say it.

But you ARE asserting that without EGW, SDAs would have no leg to stand on 1844, the sanctuary, the IJ, and the "little horn" = the papacy" doctrines. So how did those who came BEFORE EGW arrive at their conclusions without EGW? Duh!

Quote:

People would naturally have thought those things because to them at that time the Roman Catholic Church (Papacy) was indeed a leading candidate. They did not have the benefit of seeing the history as we do. (rise of Communism, rise of Islam, rise of atheism even though Darwin was started back then, etc.)

Naturally? Yeah, right! Most of the Protestant world today, with ALL the history behind them, have abandoned the Reformation teaching that the antichrist = the papacy, or the "little horn" = the papacy. But interestingly enough, there are now some who are rediscovering the priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. The whole book of Hebrews deals with this ministry.

[doug yowell]

They did not have the benefit of seeing the history as we do. (rise of Communism, rise of Islam, rise of atheism even though Darwin was started back then, etc.)

Not 100% accurate,miz. They DID have the benefit of seeing the history of the rise of Islam. Today's spurt is nothing like the historical establishment and influence of Islam up until around WWI. Check out many of the founders writings and see what they say about Mohomeddism.

[miz3]

doug youwell,

I am in agreement with you on Islam. I should have been clearer in my assertion of this entity. I was referring to the rise of Islam in the 21st Century.

Of course the Ottoman Empire was a big deal in the days of our Pioneers.

Thanks for the clarifying statement.

[miz3]

Not only did Eberhard point to the papacy as the antichrist, he also specifically claimed that the "little horn" was the papal system. And so did several Reformers. Duh!

[Gerr]

There it is again. The war is not outward but inward. I believe you, like so many other SDA, are looking in the wrong place.

And you're barking up the wrong tree. Are you sure you're not that Jesuit I've heard about that has infiltrated the organization to raise havoc in the church?

And if you don't think that the papacy is not waging a two-pronged attack of a spiritual & a physical warfare, then you are sleep-walking. Look at the papal claims, and what she has done to those who oppose those outrageous claims!

And the devil is not only waging war against the saints by exciting the evil within, but also applying pressure by the powers from without. Remember the inquisition?

[Gerr]

doug youwell,

I am in agreement with you on Islam. I should have been clearer in my assertion of this entity. I was referring to the rise of Islam in the 21st Century.

Of course the Ottoman Empire was a big deal in the days of our Pioneers.

Thanks for the clarifying statement.

And there was some theological head scratching during the height of Soviet power. Where is it now?

[miz3]

And you're barking up the wrong tree. Are you sure you're not that Jesuit I've heard about that has infiltrated the organization to raise havoc in the church?

And if you don't think that the papacy is not waging a two-pronged attack of a spiritual & a physical warfare, then you are sleep-walking. Look at the papal claims, and what she has done to those who oppose those outrageous claims!

And the devil is not only waging war against the saints by exciting the evil within, but also applying pressure by the powers from without. Remember the inquisition?

I never said the Papacy was "good". I grant you its evil. Such evil cannot be denied. However, just because it is that kind of evil does not of itself make it the Babylon mentioned in the Bible (Revelation). You have to do much better than to simply point out its gross evil.

There are many more candidates that also fill that same evil moniker.

As I have listed before some would be (but not limited to):

1. Stalin's Soviet Union (which killed more Christians than the Inquisition even thought about).

2. China's chairman Mao (who also killed and tortured many Chinese Christians by the thousands if not millions).

3. Adolf Hitler and WWII.

4. The Roman Empire (pre papacy) killed huge numbers of Christians. Could this have been Babylon spoken of in Revelation. For the people of that time this certainly would have been the most likely candidate. Why isn't there testimony that this is the Babylon valid?

Yes, Gerry let's talk history. There have been many evil entities throughout the World and throughout time that have done horrible and despicable things to God's people. The Roman Church has done its share but it is not the most brutal, nor the most prolific.

You will have to do better than you are doing to defend your Papal hate tirade.

[Sonny]

Sonny, Jack is no authority to me. Just because he says soemthing does not make it true. All I see there is a claim on his part. He is neither a prophet (like Ellen White was) nor the son of a prophet.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love [i.e., agape love] with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ, by grace you have been saved , 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus....

What's Paul clearly stating? That before these Ephesian believers were converted - i.e., while they were they dead in their transgressions and living for the flesh, that God saved them in Christ Jesus!

Notice that faith didn't save the Ephesian believers! What does Paul say? "By grace you were saved." Again, when? When they were dead in transgressions & living for their flesh, God saved them by grace in the humanity of Christ.

That verse is not saying that all the world was saved when Christ died. Your statement would mean that it would be possible to say that Hitler was saved. Absurdity!

[Sonny]

Your (or rather Jack Sequiera's belief) here

[John317]

...He has saved all men by His justification, but not all will be saved because they can reject what has already been accomplished.

He has not saved all men by His death. He has made it possible for all men to be saved. That is what the Bible teaches. "Salvation has appeared to all men." The Bible doesn't teach that all men have been justified, or set in right relationship with God and treated just as if they had never sinend. God has not accounted all men as if they are as righteous as Christ, yet that is what justification is.

Your idea would mean we can say that Hitler was saved or justified. But the Bible nowhere teaches such. Yet he certainly did reject God's offer of salvation. He did it by his life and by the way he killed himself after murdering his wife.

How do you believe people reject God's offer of salvation?

[John317]

...I am sorry but as bad as Roman Catholicism is they are not the ultimate evil you want them to be.

No one is saying that the Catholic people are "the ultimate evil." They are not.

The evil of Roman Catholicism is not the people but the papal system and the false teachings.

[John317]

...There are many more candidates that also fill that same evil moniker.

As I have listed before some would be (but not limited to):

1. Stalin's Soviet Union (which killed more Christians than the Inquisition even thought about).

2. China's chairman Mao (who also killed and tortured many Chinese Christians by the thousands if not millions).

3. Adolf Hitler and WWII.

4. The Roman Empire (pre papacy) killed huge numbers of Christians. Could this have been Babylon spoken of in Revelation. For the people of that time this certainly would have been the most likely candidate. Why isn't there testimony that this is the Babylon valid?

... There have been many evil entities throughout the World and throughout time that have done horrible and despicable things to God's people. The Roman Church has done its share but it is not the most brutal, nor the most prolific.

Being evil isn't the only identifying mark of Babylon. All of the people you describe above were evil, but that doesn't make them Babylon.

But what is the essentail difference between the things you mention above and the Babylon that is described in the Bible?

How do we know those things, such as Stalin's Russia, or Hitler's Germany, Mao's China, are not Babylon?

And how is Rome different from the others?

[John317]

...People would naturally have thought those things because to them at that time the Roman Catholic Church (Papacy) was indeed a leading candidate. They did not have the benefit of seeing the history as we do. (rise of Communism, rise of Islam, rise of atheism even though Darwin was started back then, etc.)

The rise of Communism and of Islam and atheism doesn't change the validity of the identity of the papal system as the little horn power and the earth-beast of Rev. 13.

If you believe those things make it impossible or less likely for Roman Catholicism to be Babylon, please show your evidence and your reasoning.

The Protestants saw the Papacy as the antiChrist power because they were good Bible students, good students of history, and they were led by the Holy Spirit. It's foolishness to think that the reason they believed as they did was that they simply had no one else to consider as a candidate for Babylon.

[John317]

People would naturally have thought those things because to them at that time the Roman Catholic Church (Papacy) was indeed a leading candidate. They did not have the benefit of seeing the history as we do. (rise of Communism, rise of Islam, rise of atheism even though Darwin was started back then, etc.)

Please show how these other "candidates" fulfill the prophecies regarding Babylon more perfectly than the papal system and the Roman Catholic Church.

[Gerr]

There are many more candidates that also fill that same evil moniker.

As I have listed before some would be (but not limited to):

1. Stalin's Soviet Union (which killed more Christians than the Inquisition even thought about).

2. China's chairman Mao (who also killed and tortured many Chinese Christians by the thousands if not millions).

3. Adolf Hitler and WWII.

4. The Roman Empire (pre papacy) killed huge numbers of Christians. Could this have been Babylon spoken of in Revelation. For the people of that time this certainly would have been the most likely candidate. Why isn't there testimony that this is the Babylon valid?

Good thoughts, but none fit the descriptions. Do you know what the Bible says about the antichrist and the little horn?

[John317]

4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love [i.e., agape love] with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ, by grace you have been saved , 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus....

What's Paul clearly stating? That before these Ephesian believers were converted - i.e., while they were they dead in their transgressions and living for the flesh, that God saved them in Christ Jesus!

Notice that faith didn't save the Ephesian believers! What does Paul say? "By grace you were saved." Again, when? When they were dead in transgressions & living for their flesh, God saved them by grace in the humanity of Christ.

Originally Posted By: John3:17

That verse is not saying that all the world was saved when Christ died. Your statement would mean that it would be possible to say that Hitler was saved. Absurdity!

Originally Posted By: Sonny

Yes that verse is saying that the human race was saved "in Christ". Deal with it, John. Be honest.

Quote:

OK, let's deal with it together. The passage simply does not mean what you claim it does. If you believe it does, show it.

Quote:

World Wide English

1There was a time when you were dead. That was because of the bad and the wrong things you did.

2At one time you did those wrong things, just like the people around you. You obeyed the ruler who has the power over things in the air. That ruler is the spirit who is working now in the people who do not obey God.

3At one time we too all lived like them. We lived to please ourselves. We did what our bodies and our minds wanted us to do. We were people with whom God was angry, just like other people.

4But God was very, very kind. He loved us very, very much.

5We were dead because of the wrong things we had done. He has made us alive with Christ. You have been saved by his love and kindness.

6God raised us from death with Christ Jesus and gave us a place to sit with him in heaven.

7He did this to show us in all times to come how much he can bless people and how kind he is. It was Jesus Christ who brought this kindness to us.

8You have been saved by God's love and kindness because you believed. It was not because of anything you did, but it was a gift from God.

9You were not saved by trying to do what the law says. So no one can be proud about it.

10God has made us. In Jesus Christ God made us so that we can do good things. He planned that we should live that way.

11So remember that you were not born Jews. (They call you `The Uncircumcised').

12Remember you did not know Christ at that time. You were far away from the people of Israel. You had no part in the agreements which God promised to them. You had no hope and you were without God in this world.

[miz3]

He has not saved all men by His death. He has made it possible for all men to be saved. That is what the Bible teaches. "Salvation has appeared to all men." The Bible doesn't teach that all men have been justified, or set in right relationship with God and treated just as if they had never sinend. God has not accounted all men as if they are as righteous as Christ, yet that is what justification is.

Your idea would mean we can say that Hitler was saved or justified. But the Bible nowhere teaches such. Yet he certainly did reject God's offer of salvation. He did it by his life and by the way he killed himself after murdering his wife.

Sonny has nailed it tight shut! He has shown the Truth of what he says from the Bible. You have not.

The Bible does not teach the "possibility" of being saved. Your take on this is one of the major reasons for your so many flaws in your views of the Scripture. (this is probably due to the conflicting writings of Ellen White on many issues).

And yes, God died and made Hitler "Justified" before God. Will Hitler be in heaven? Neither you or I can answer that question. Only God will determine that. "man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart."

Yet you judge Hitler as being lost. Are you privy to the Counsels of Heaven in a way none of the rest of us are? I am amazed at your assertion and also your lack of being honest about the texts which Sonny has clearly put in front of you.

Why do you insist on ignoring the plain Word of God?

Returning to Hitler:

1. Using a persons fruit to determine whether or not they are fit to be entrusted with anything connected with you is OK. Such as engaging in business deals with them, or holding an SDA Church office.

2. Using a person's fruit to determine whether they are saved or lost is NOT OK!

ONLY GOD KNOWS WHO HE WANTS IN HIS KINGDOM-----JOHN317, OR ANY OTHER HUMAN DOES GET TO DECIDE NOR DOES ANY HUMAN INCLUDING JOHN317 KNOW WHO GOD HAS CHOSEN.

Who knows John317, if God takes you to heaven maybe Herr Hitler will be your neighbor.

[John317]

Do you know what the Bible says about the antichrist and the little horn?

Good question for miz3. I am desirous of learning the answer to the same question. Apparently he doesn't.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

He has not saved all men by His death. He has made it possible for all men to be saved. That is what the Bible teaches. "Salvation has appeared to all men." The Bible doesn't teach that all men have been justified, or set in right relationship with God and treated just as if they had never sinend. God has not accounted all men as if they are as righteous as Christ, yet that is what justification is.

Your idea would mean we can say that Hitler was saved or justified. But the Bible nowhere teaches such. Yet he certainly did reject God's offer of salvation. He did it by his life and by the way he killed himself after murdering his wife.

Sonny has nailed it tight shut! He has shown the Truth of what he says from the Bible. You have not.

The Bible does not teach the "possibility" of being saved. Your take on this is one of the major reasons for your so many flaws in your views of the Scripture. (this is probably due to the conflicting writings of Ellen White on many issues).

There is no preaching in the book of Acts which says that sinners have already been saved before they put their faith in Christ. And if you and Sonny are right that the world is already "saved" or "justified," we should find someone in the NT preaching that everyone has already been saved or justified. But that is not what we find. Instead we find Peter and Paul preaching that if people put their faith in Christ, then they will be saved. Christ preached the same way; he never told anyone that that they were saved before they were born.

[miz3]

John317,

You obviously do not read Paul very carefully because Sonny gave you the texts and you REJECT their clear expressions. You further REJECT the Truth by making the statements you do.

Here is a statement from the Spirit of Prophecy just for you:

The Word of God is to be our guide. Have you given heed to the Word? The Testimonies are not by any means to take the place of the Word. They are to bring you to that neglected Word, that you may eat the words of Christ, that you may feed upon them, that by living faith you may be built up from that upon which you feed. -- General Conference Bulletin, 1901, page 25.

Yet in spite your denials to the contrary you rely on the "Testimonies" for your primary views. You and the SDA Church have elevated Ellen White (against her own wish) above the Bible and the Bible only.

Yes, I am coming soon to the "antichrist" and the "little horn".

[miz3]

Do you know what the Bible says about the antichrist and the little horn?

Also echoed by John317!

"Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."

1John 2:18-19.

1. The text states that "the antichrist is coming". It does not specify what or who that antichrist is.

2. It states that "many antichrists" have already come. Some of these antichrists used to walk among God's people.

3. Everything is in the context of the "present", it is not talking about entities that will come in the future. These "many antichrists" have left (not will leave).

4. The last days John the Revelator is speaking of is right then while he and the others are alive. Not some future date long into the future.

5. No Roman Catholic Church power. It is actually as the Revelator states antichrists are individual persons (not churches, organizations, religio-political powers, etc.) who reject God and Jesus Christ.

This is reference number one from the Bible on the antichrist.

There is more to come.

[miz3]

This Bible text number two on the "antichrist".

"This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."

1John 4:2-3.

1. You are able to recognize the Spirit of God if that spirit "acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God".

2. Those that do not acknowledge that Jesus is from God then those entities are the "antichrist".

3. This spirit of not acknowledging Jesus is from God will come in the future and in fact is already here in John's day.

4. Again, it is talking about the spirit of individuals not groups or organizations.

5. It cannot be the Roman Catholic Church because the antichrist is already there.

6. Again, no mention of some religio-political system.

That's two Biblical references to "antichrist".

More still to come.

[miz3]

Bible text number three on the "antichrist".

"Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."

2John 1:7.

1. Again, the antichrist is one who does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.

2. "Any such person", not groups, not religio-political systems, not churches, not organizations, not the Roman Catholic Church. John the Revelator is again stating that this is about "individuals" only that are to be called antichrist.

No Roman Catholic Church here.

These three texts I have shown in writing for all to see are the only three references in the Bible to the antichrist.

All three texts in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM even give the smallest scintilla of a hint, let alone out right expression, that the Roman Catholic Church is the "antichrist".

You are mistaken. The Bible says nothing about the Roman Catholic Church or any church for that matter as being antichrist.

Individuals as antichrists-----YES!

But then you knew this already. You just rely on Ellen White's statements that the Roman Catholic Church is the "antichrist".

You could not possibly have gotten it from the Bible.