SDA Evangelism

[Gustave]

7 hours ago, B/W Photodude said:

After the victory of Elijah at Mt Carmel, he fled from the wrath of Jezebel to Mt Horeb. There he claimed to God that he only was still true to God. God then informed him that he had 7000 in Israel that had never bent the knee to Baal.

While there may not have been a church for many centuries other than the Roman church (wonder why that was?!), it did not mean there were not followers of God alone and who had not bent the knee to Rome. Given the centuries of persecution of those who followed God and not Rome, even if Rome claimed to be following God, and even the millions who were martyred and slaughtered by the Roman church during the time of it's apparent supremacy in Europe and during the inquisitions to follow.

There were groups of people known as the Waldensees and the Albigenses who covertly for centuries went about the work of God in spreading Scripture to people all thru Europe even as they were being hounded and persecuted by the Roman church.

So, the fact that there was no open church for people to belong to does not mean anything other than the people of God were under severe persecution for their faith. 

We know there were those who rejected the instructions mentioned in Acts 15, 30-31.

 

Folks that "dropped out" were classified this way:

"They went out from us, BUT they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they are all not of us". 1 John 2, 19

That's really clear, in my humble opinion. IT was very plain who was outside of Apostolic teaching and who wasn't. 

Hebrews 13, 17 hammers this point home very well in that the "rulers" spoken of here are not secular, they are the Church. 

For the 1st 325 years it was the Sunday observing Christians that were being tortured and killed for their Apostolic Faith. 

The Albigenses were hardly "Christian" in the Tradition of the Apostles, their doctrines were radical. The Waldeses also had some beliefs that were contrary to Apostolic teaching. In any event both these groups got started after the East/West split in approximately 1000 A.D. thus if someone at that time thought that the Roman Catholic Church was the great whore of Babylon they could have joined the Orthodox Church. 

I've already posted a rather lengthy letter of the Greek Orthodox slamming the Pope for his "blasphemous doctrines" so when one realizes that the two groups you mentioned took issues with both the Orthodox and Catholic position where does that leave them? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.

[Gustave]

On 2/6/2020 at 2:49 PM, BlessedMan said:

Like I said; I think we are talking about the wrong woman here. When I see what the RCC is claiming re Mary, there is no comparison.

I'm not understanding what you're saying. It wasn't the Virgin Mary that postulated Jesus could have sinned, lost His Salvation & eternally ceased to exist. Ellen White repeatedly suggested this hypothetical was possible despite the Trinity saying the direct opposite. 

Luke 2,15: When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us." And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they saw it THEY MADE KNOWN THE SAYING WHICH HAD BEEN TOLD THEM CONCERNING THIS CHILD; and all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. BUT MARY KEPT ALL THESE THINGS, PONDERING THEM IN HER HEART." 

What God told them was that the Baby they were about to see WOULD be a great joy to "ALL" people because the Savior had been born.

Angel = "I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the City of David a Savior, WHO IS CHRIST THE LORD."

VS.

Ellen White: I bring you good news of a [ possible ] great joy which will  MIGHT come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the City of David a  [ potential ]Savior, WHO IS [ might become ] CHRIST THE LORD as long as he doesn't sin and loose his salvation. 

 

 

 

 

[BlessedMan]

I wont reply to anything where square bracket emphasis is added to embellish one's biased; you can be biased if you want to.

13 hours ago, Gustave said:

On 2/6/2020 at 3:49 PM, BlessedMan said:

Like I said; I think we are talking about the wrong woman here. When I see what the RCC is claiming re Mary, there is no comparison.

I'm not understanding what you're saying. It wasn't the Virgin Mary that postulated Jesus could have sinned,

Is there any sense in replying to you here? I didn't criticize anything "Mary said;" I did say specifically that it was what the RCC says about Mary, which is NOT in Scripture anywhere. What the Bible says about her, and what the RCCs say about her are two different things.

[BlessedMan]

15 hours ago, Gustave said:

BUT MARY KEPT ALL THESE THINGS, PONDERING THEM IN HER HEART." 

Any Christian would do the same thing.

The Bible tells us that Jesus alone "is the way, the Truth, and the Life..." John 14:6.

The RCC tries to tell people that they need Mary, along with Jesus to be fully "saved" and have the "fulness" of truth.

According to my understanding, Mary is projected by The RCC as a competitor to Jesus, directly competing for our attention, our filial devotions; and for our souls. The only thing worse than not having any hope in Christ, is to have a false hope in Christ. Mary is NOT needed for salvation; any more than EGW is, yet, the RCC tells us differently.

From the book called "The Glories Of Mary":

"“I endeavored to collect, from as many authors as I could lay my hands on, the choicest passages, extracted from Fathers and theologians, and those which seemed to me to be the most to the point, and have put them together in this book, in order that the devout may with little trouble and expense be able to inflame themselves with the love of Mary, and more particularly to furnish the priests with matter for their sermons, wherewith to excite others to devotion towards this divine Mother.” (The Glories of Mary, p. 30.")
 
This book consists of several chapters. In each, Lioguori seeks to prove a certain point about Mary. At the end of each chapter, he gives an illustration of the point and ends with a prayer to Mary based on the content of the chapter.
The edition I am using here was published by the Redemptorist Fathers in 1931 and bears the imprimatur by Patrick (Cardinal) Hayes on April 16, 1931.

The wild statements about "Mary" in Liguori’s quotations come from all of the "church fathers," over all of the years; and most of the quotations rightly apply to wisdom personified (Jesus) or to Solomon’s bride (the church). BUT they are applied to Mary because the RCC has said so. In writing about Mary; many texts are persistently torn out of their contexts. Just as your posts do with that one sentence from EGW.

In this book "The Glories Of Mary" texts from the Old Testament are used without any New Testament corroboration. They originally apply to Jesus and they are widely applied to Mary:

Liguori, p. 101:

Quote

If Mary is for us, who can be against us? (Rom 8:31)

Im pretty sure that EGW is not the woman we should be looking at here.

What The Bible says About Mary:

Mary was a sinner who needed a Savior.

There is no record IN THE BIBLE of her being conceived immaculately or living without sin.
 
She was a virgin before Jesus was born but there is no evidence that she was perpetually a virgin after he was born

In one sense Mary was the mother of the God/Man because she brought the God/Man into the world but she was not the mother of God in SUBSTANCE, as in the strictest sense of the word because Jesus was her Creator!

Your posts seem to favor a pointed attack on EGW, but I would suggest that we are looking at the wrong woman here.

Maybe it's time for us to examine the Immaculate Deception? Adventist Evangelism will always oppose the RCC teachings of Mary because the RCC teaching on Mary takes away the need for a Savior; its like the RCC is trying to get us to believe that Jesus did fail; and that Jesus needed a little help with/through Mary. THAT is the very thing here that would definitely say to the world:

Quote

"...without Mary; Jesus would have failed; and so would we..."

Apparently, the RCC teaches that no salvation exists for anyone who refuses to "obey the Bishops and Priests:" (especially regarding "Mary.")

Cyprian of Carthage [200-270 AD] Epistle 61

"Let them not think that the way of life or salvation exists for them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests, since the Lord says in the book of Deuteronomy: ‘And any man who has the insolence to refuse to listen to the priest or judge, whoever he may be in those days, that man shall die’ [Deut. 17:12]. And then, indeed, they were killed with the sword , but now the proud and insolent are killed with the sword of the Spirit, when they are cast out from the Church. For they cannot live outside, since there is only one house of God, and there can be no salvation for anyone except in the Church" (Letters 61[4]:4 [A.D. 253]).

I think you likely have much more explaining to do before you can start attacking EGW, and an entire denomination over just one sentence.

 

[phkrause]

16 hours ago, Gustave said:

I'm not understanding what you're saying. It wasn't the Virgin Mary that postulated Jesus could have sinned, lost His Salvation & eternally ceased to exist. Ellen White repeatedly suggested this hypothetical was possible despite the Trinity saying the direct opposite. 

Luke 2,15: When the angels went away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, "Let us go over to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has made known to us." And they went with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they saw it THEY MADE KNOWN THE SAYING WHICH HAD BEEN TOLD THEM CONCERNING THIS CHILD; and all who heard it wondered at what the shepherds told them. BUT MARY KEPT ALL THESE THINGS, PONDERING THEM IN HER HEART." 

What God told them was that the Baby they were about to see WOULD be a great joy to "ALL" people because the Savior had been born.

You claim that the Trinity was saying the exact opposite? But yet there's is not one word in these statements from the Trinity?????

 

16 hours ago, Gustave said:

Angel = "I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the City of David a Savior, WHO IS CHRIST THE LORD."

VS.

Ellen White: I bring you good news of a [ possible ] great joy which will  MIGHT come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the City of David a  [ potential ]Savior, WHO IS [ might become ] CHRIST THE LORD as long as he doesn't sin and loose his salvation. 

This is an angel not the Trinity either and in the second statement where is the link, because I doubt very much that EGW said it that way??

[BlessedMan]

17 minutes ago, phkrause said:

This is an angel not the Trinity either and in the second statement where is the link, because I doubt very much that EGW said it that way??

If you skim up a few posts above I posted its correct context

[Gustave]

31 minutes ago, phkrause said:

You claim that the Trinity was saying the exact opposite? But yet there's is not one word in these statements from the Trinity?????

 

This is an angel not the Trinity either and in the second statement where is the link, because I doubt very much that EGW said it that way??

The Trinity had already said it. 

God the Father said it in Daniel 2, 44 & 45. God the Father again, according to the Shepherds in Luke 2,15, was the originator of the Information ( the Lord hath made known to us ). 

God the Son was explicit in Matthew 11, 2-5 when He identified Himself as "God" by referring John's disciples to Isaiah 35,4 - .....

God the Holy Spirit was explicit that Jesus would not fail when Simeon was promised he would not die until he had seen "The Lord's Christ" with his own eyes (Luke 2, 25-38). 

A failed Christ is not THE Christ spoken of in Sacred Scripture. 

If Christ had the "potential" to fail (sin and loose His Salvation) and it wasn't absolutely revealed the Baby Jesus was the real deal and would succeed Simeon would not have said the following. 

 

Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:  For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Simeon WOULDN'T have been allowed to die because Jesus might of "slipped up"  right up until the day of Crucifixion. 

It should be noted that Mary marveled and pondered the incredible things she had been told about Jesus 

I suppose the next thing I will be told is that Simeon was a young whipper snapper of about 15 years of age and thus to protect what Ellen White said about Jesus having the potential of committing VICE Simeon died of natural causes after Jesus died on the cross. 

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

A failed Christ is not THE Christ spoken of in Sacred Scripture. 

 

ONLY a failed Christ would need help in "mediating" from Mary, according to the RCC.

[Gustave]

1 minute ago, BlessedMan said:

ONLY a failed Christ would need help in "mediating" from Mary, according to the RCC.

I've provided multiple quotes from Ellen White where she says Jesus could have sinned and fallen - I've also provided multiple Scriptures that unequivocally demonstrate Ellen was simply wrong in saying / teaching this. 

Where in any Catholic Teaching do you read that Mary helps Christ mediating because Christ failed in anything? 

[BlessedMan]

29 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I've provided multiple quotes from Ellen White where she says Jesus could have sinned and fallen - I've also provided multiple Scriptures that unequivocally demonstrate Ellen was simply wrong in saying / teaching this. 

Where in any Catholic Teaching do you read that Mary helps Christ mediating because Christ failed in anything? 

Those "multiple posts" are all saying the same thought.  "Multiple posts" are only useful if they each divest some new information. What you are constantly quoting is just repetition, not new facts. Its just common sense that we cant make one sentence/thought out to mean what any person teaches on anything. Additionally, That one sentence does not constitute either now or then any official belief of the Adventist Church. To ignore this and still say "thats what Adventists "really" believe"  is just plain poor scholarship. Your stated desire to bruit that one sentence into the sum of official Adventist teaching is not based on any identifiable facts. Making one sentence find confluence into a vast body of writing is impossible, unless one doesn't have an interest in finding the truth of the matter.

I have provided just a few quotes above re Mary. I am not clear why you have not addressed those. I have many more. Ill be happy to post some, as the ones I already have above are addressed, as I am sure you are more than capable of.

For my own personal purpose here; it doesnt matter a hill of beans to me what you think one sentence means from any Adventist writer. so I wont likely devote much energy to that kind of repetitious allegation. I agree with you that Jesus doesnt need EGW to say anything right now. I think that EGW, along with many christian writers often wrote in the figural sense; exploring doubts and questions, or fears; but it is almost never  to make a statement of doctrinal clarity, but to make one particular point. Her point was always "Jesus is enough."  Thats almost impossible to miss in her writings. Unless, of course one chooses to only read one sentence.

My statements about "Mary" are not done for any personal reasons. I have done my homework; I know what the RCC teaches about it. My statements are strictly an invitation to compare & contrast a little in order to show that Adventists have never claimed for EGW even the half of what the RCC teaches re Mary.  I think it needs to be an essential part of the discussion.  My point is simple. There is no logical, Biblical reason for looking to Mary for anything. She was a sinner, saved by grace, just like any of us, and dare I say, just like EGW. Mary was called "blessed," but so were many other people in scripture. It is not Biblical to claim she is a mediatrix or "co-redemptress,"  for me that is the immaculate deception. IF RCCs say we need Mary to "intercede" or help in any way to relate to Jesus; then how is that any different than saying "Jesus isnt good enough?"  When I read all that stuff about "Mary"  I read: "Jesus failed."

The typical apologetic will usually try to say that "that poor, deceived Protestant just doesnt' understand correctly what we teach."   Its always a problem with "the other guy."  But I will post what I do understand.

"Mary" when I put it in quotes like that is intended to refer to a family or array of dogmas held as "mandatory" by the RCC.

"Mary" is not a part of "apostolic tradition," and I am unclear as to how anyone could prove otherwise by scripture. When the second church (not first church) came up with "Mary"  the apostles were all, long gone without breathing a word of it to us. The second church, IMO, was the first off-shoot.

[Gustave]

3 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

Those "multiple posts" are all saying the same thought.  "Multiple posts" are only useful if they each divest some new information. What you are constantly quoting is just repetition, not new facts. Its just common sense that we cant make one sentence/thought out to mean what any person teaches on anything. Additionally, That one sentence does not constitute either now or then any official belief of the Adventist Church. To ignore this and still say "thats what Adventists "really" believe"  is just plain poor scholarship. Your stated desire to bruit that one sentence into the sum of official Adventist teaching is not based on any identifiable facts. Making one sentence find confluence into a vast body of writing is impossible, unless one doesn't have an interest in finding the truth of the matter.

I have provided just a few quotes above re Mary. I am not clear why you have not addressed those. I have many more. Ill be happy to post some, as the ones I already have above are addressed, as I am sure you are more than capable of.

For my own personal purpose here; it doesnt matter a hill of beans to me what you think one sentence means from any Adventist writer. so I wont likely devote much energy to that kind of repetitious allegation. I agree with you that Jesus doesnt need EGW to say anything right now. I think that EGW, along with many christian writers often wrote in the figural sense; exploring doubts and questions, or fears; but it is almost never  to make a statement of doctrinal clarity, but to make one particular point. Her point was always "Jesus is enough."  Thats almost impossible to miss in her writings. Unless, of course one chooses to only read one sentence.

My statements about "Mary" are not done for any personal reasons. I have done my homework; I know what the RCC teaches about it. My statements are strictly an invitation to compare & contrast a little in order to show that Adventists have never claimed for EGW even the half of what the RCC teaches re Mary.  I think it needs to be an essential part of the discussion.  My point is simple. There is no logical, Biblical reason for looking to Mary for anything. She was a sinner, saved by grace, just like any of us, and dare I say, just like EGW. Mary was called "blessed," but so were many other people in scripture. It is not Biblical to claim she is a mediatrix or "co-redemptress,"  for me that is the immaculate deception. IF RCCs say we need Mary to "intercede" or help in any way to relate to Jesus; then how is that any different than saying "Jesus isnt good enough?"  When I read all that stuff about "Mary"  I read: "Jesus failed."

The typical apologetic will usually try to say that "that poor, deceived Protestant just doesnt' understand correctly what we teach."   Its always a problem with "the other guy."  But I will post what I do understand.

"Mary" when I put it in quotes like that is intended to refer to a family or array of dogmas held as "mandatory" by the RCC.

"Mary" is not a part of "apostolic tradition," and I am unclear as to how anyone could prove otherwise by scripture. When the second church (not first church) came up with "Mary"  the apostles were all, long gone without breathing a word of it to us. The second church, IMO, was the first off-shoot.

Something must have slipped by me here. You're saying that the following:

Ellen White, Desire of Ages, page 49 unto you a savior
Satan in heaven had hated Christ for His position in the courts of God. He hated Him the more when he himself was dethroned. He hated Him who pledged Himself to redeem a race of sinners. Yet into the world where Satan claimed dominion God permitted His Son to come, a helpless babe, subject to the weakness of humanity. He permitted Him to meet life's peril in common with every human soul, to fight the battle as every child of humanity must fight it, at the risk of failure and eternal loss.”

Ellen White, ST, June 9, 1898
Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam. Christ and the church would have been without hope.”

SDA Deity of Christ, Longacre, pages 13 & 14
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.

was never an official SDA Church teaching or considered "VITAL" belief for SDA's? 

 

[BlessedMan]

51 minutes ago, Gustave said:

My statements about "Mary" are not done for any personal reasons. I have done my homework; I know what the RCC teaches about it. My statements are strictly an invitation to compare & contrast a little in order to show that Adventists have never claimed for EGW even the half of what the RCC teaches re Mary.  I think it needs to be an essential part of the discussion.  My point is simple. There is no logical, Biblical reason for looking to Mary for anything. She was a sinner, saved by grace, just like any of us, and dare I say, just like EGW. Mary was called "blessed," but so were many other people in scripture. It is not Biblical to claim she is a mediatrix or "co-redemptress,"  for me that is the immaculate deception. IF RCCs say we need Mary to "intercede" or help in any way to relate to Jesus; then how is that any different than saying "Jesus isnt good enough?"  When I read all that stuff about "Mary"  I read: "Jesus failed."

 

[BlessedMan]

5 hours ago, Gustave said:

Where in any Catholic Teaching do you read that Mary helps Christ mediating because Christ failed in anything? 

I see you are finding it necessary to resort to materials on an anti-trinity web site in your last post. Makes one wonder if you will ever start to actually quote OFFICIAL denominational fundamental beliefs in order to "expose" what Adventists "really believe."

The reason I used the RCC book called "The Glories Of Mary" above is just for that reason. Its offical RCC dogma that is salvational to RCCs. The RCC Bishop who wrote the book specifically draws people's attention to the fact that it contains a very inclusive sampling from ALL of the major RCC church "Fathers," about the subject.

I think we could also note that the Church Fathers for the RCC collectively, would seem to say that authentic and orthodox interpretation of Scripture can only be obtained if one understands Scripture according to the "deposit of faith" of the Church. The "Fathers" never really wanted to be considered private exegetes nor would they usually try to be innovative in their approach to interpreting Scripture. (although that is changing with the advent of the internet). The "Fathers" appear to have just one, major priority in mind when "interpreting" Scripture -- to teach the apostolic doctrine as it was taught to them. This kind of monologue dogma formation doesn't sit well with people who believe they need to study for themselves.

"Mary" is an exclusivist set of dogmas; seemingly to direct people's attention to a very specific set of  doctrines that certainly do not follow "apostolic traditions."  As I said earlier; when I quote "Mary" as such, I am referring to a collection, an array, or an assortment of beliefs that the we could call, collectively "Mary."  If you are game; I'd be interested to discuss those specifics in future posts. "Mary" is not optional for RCCs. "Mary" is a mandatory dogma "cloud" of RCC "witnesses;" peculiar to their denomination, from the top on down. "Mary" is dictated to RCs by their various Popes.

IMO, exclusivist dogmas like "Mary" have to take their place amongst the general pattern of corruption by the second church, not the first church. All that that stuff says to me is that Jesus isn't quite enough. Not even that Jesus "could have" failed, but that He did fail; else why would we need "Mary?"

Another, prime example, from The Catholic Encyclopedia that is included with "The Faith Database" software (RCC) has for the first sentence under "Blessed Virgin Mary," the following, as an opening statement:

Quote

"The Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, the mother of God."

This is a very misleading statement, at best. It confers things about Substance (of divinity) that no one knows or has a way of knowing. There is a reason that scripture talks about Jesus being "MADE of a woman," and it has nothing to do with "Mary" being the literal, physical mother of Divinity. THAT would give her a preeminence over God and Jesus; if she was GOD's physical mother. Mary was the mother of the incarnate Christ. Not the mother of God Himself. The Bible doesn't say that about Mary  at all. Anywhere. Mary was all human - no divinity involved. Jesus, ("The fullness of the Godhead bodily."), who we know was incarnate under both natures; but choosing only one nature; that we might choose His nature, was a free moral agent. Thats why His death on Calvary is called "vicarious." According to The Word Web Dictionary, "vicarious" means "Suffered or done by one person as a substitute for another..." Jesus did CHOOSE to do that. That also means He could have chosen differently. In fact Jesus thought about trying to when He prayed "let this cup pass from me." (Mat 26:39).

The beautiful part of this whole message in Jesus' prayer to "have this cup removed" is that Jesus accepted the Father's answer, which was revealed in what Jesus said in the 2nd half of this prayer: "nevertheless not as I will, but as thou..."

To disagree with that has nothing to do with EGW because its all in the Bible. Ellen White wrote about it because its in the Bible. The sentence you keep "quoting" from EGW actually agrees with scriptures that tell us how Jesus made a choice so we could make a choice. It is interesting to note that Jesus asked for the "cup" to be removed three times in a row! He was definitely waffling there. Noticing that does not have to mean that we are saying Jesus "could have failed;" it means He had some choices by which to proceed. "Theoretically, (no EGW needed) there is nothing in scripture to tell us that Jesus could not have been an agent of free will. Jesus was able to choose.

Jesus chose the Father's will; and this same choice is available for all today "who will hear His Voice."  EGW says this over & over in everything she wrote. To ignore all that for one sentence is just taint. Prophecy does say Jesus would prevail; but it never denies that He had some choice, IF He wanted that He could have. Jesus wanted us to have the same choice as He did, and thats why He said: "Come; let us REASON together." (Isa 1:18).

Jesus chose our nature, that we might choose His nature. IF Jesus had no choice in the matter, in order to "prove" that "He could not have failed," then we too would have no choice to make either. We would be forced into it. God does not operate that way. He wont force anyone to be saved; but that would be the only option if He had no choices there.

Scripture talks about Jesus being "MADE under a woman" (Gal 4;4-5) and I believe this has direct implications re the RCC "Mary."

Quote

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (Gal 4:4-5).

The whole purpose of God in sending forth His Son "under a woman" was to redeem us from being "under the Law," that we might enjoy the liberty and joy that comes with "the Father’s house;" of which Jesus often spoke. (John 14:2). This is why Paul said Jesus was "MADE under a woman."  When the angels joyously announced "Unto you this day a Savior is born," they were including this "under a woman" portion of scripture. Mary is/was also "under the law" or there would be no point in Christ's Incarnation.

If "Mary" "could be", in her role of mother, in any way "divinity" then Jesus was not made "under a woman;" within the Biblical context intended for Gal 4: 4-5. Jesus could not make any choices, if He was not "MADE under a woman." And neither could we.

After the sentence I wrote above from The Catholic Encyclopedia, about "Mary" being the "mother of God," we read in the next paragraph after that, still under the heading of "Blessed Virgin Mary"

Quote

 

"I. MARY PROPHESIED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT  [+]

The Old Testament refers to Our Blessed Lady both in its prophecies and its types or figures.  [+]
Genesis 3:15 [R] [+]

The first prophecy referring to Mary is found in the very opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (3:15): "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Genesis 3:15 is a prophecy about Jesus, NOT "Mary." Even in a strictly figural context, it doesn't make sense to try to say Gen 3:15 is talking about "Mary."

 

I am not sure what Bible version this Catholic Encyclopedia was using, but lets try a common one that most of us are likely to have available for reading.

Quote

"And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel." (Gen 3:15, KJV).

Adam & Eve made some choices. They "could have" chosen differently. Jesus was confronted "in the wilderness" by Satan with the very same temptations to undermine trust in God that he used against Adam and Eve; and even against the angels in heaven. "There was war in heaven" means that choices were made. It means that they "could have" chosen differently. There is no Biblical reason to suppose that Jesus was not "tempted in all points" like we are. Could it be that EGW was actually correct when she said Jesus "could have" made a different choice? And IF He did do that; what would have been the result?

In every generation God had His agencies. It certainly wasn't the RCCs in OT times. Even among the heathen there are always people through whom Christ IS working to uplift others from their sin and degradation. As EGW liked to say it:

Quote

"The source of every right impulse is from Christ."

Among the Jews there were always  steadfast souls, descendants of that holy line through whom a knowledge of God had been preserved. These still looked for the hope of the promise made unto their fathers. They strengthened their faith by dwelling upon the assurance given through Moses, "A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; Him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever He shall say unto you." Acts 3:22. That lineage was and is "the first church."  While many denominations over the years have tried to lay claim to that [perceived] status; only one church fits the descriptions. Its not the RCC.

Jesus, in Scripture, was a Seventh-day Adventist Protestant. He kept the 7th day Sabbath and He was definitely a Protestant. So much so that the "church" authorities of the day wanted to kill Him. Could this be related to why the RCC is working furiously to kill  erase the 7th day Sabbath by replacing it with "Sunday." I alsotend to use "Sunday" to  denote a range of dogmas related to "keeping Sunday."

It is well-known that "history" apart from scripture is activist in nature; and it often leans to whatever the bent of the author is. History books often call the RCCs "the first church;" but thats not based on Biblical facts when they do that.

Because of some of the very distinctive, non-optional RCC dogmas, such as "Mary" there is no way to attach all that to scripture. Some of that is obviously on the [claimed] "authority" of the RCC.

Seventh day Adventists are the only ones who can trace their lineage all the way down - and that is precisely because of that pesky little 7th day thing that others are trying so hard to get rid of. The beauty about Bible truth and the church is its NOT based on race, culture, or even denominations. Its based on Bible truth. Adventists are simply carrying that torch forward. Adventists are not alone in keeping the 7th day Sabbath. "In Christ there is no east or west."

[Gustave]

27 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

 

If you've done your homework you'd know that the Eastern Orthodox Church venerates the Theotokos and differs with the Catholics in the area of Original Sin (which Orthodox do not agree with). Aside from original sin and the caveat (according to the Orthodox that Mary could have sinned but choose not to) what theological issues do you have with the Eastern Orthodox view of Mary? 

Since the Orthodox view the Roman Church as "the womb of all heresies", reject Papal Infallibility, and every council after the 7th and adding one that Catholics reject I would be interested to know what your view on the Orthodox Church view on Mary. Perhaps we could start there and chase your concerns back through Christian history. Would that work for ya?  

[BlessedMan]

10 minutes ago, Gustave said:

If you've done your homework you'd know that the Eastern Orthodox Church venerates the Theotokos and differs with the Catholics in the area of Original Sin (which Orthodox do not agree with)

Yes, thank you I am aware of this. I think there are 7 different catholic denominations, insofar as "Rites" are concerned.

[Gustave]

2 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

Yes, thank you I am aware of this. I think there are 7 different catholic denominations, insofar as "Rites" are concerned.

I believe it’s 6 rites. Perhaps you are thinking of the 7 Sacraments?

 

[BlessedMan]

9 hours ago, Gustave said:

I believe it’s 6 rites. Perhaps you are thinking of the 7 Sacraments?

 

lol NOPE  I was guessing!

[Gustave]

20 hours ago, Gustave said:

The Trinity had already said it. 

God the Father said it in Daniel 2, 44 & 45. God the Father again, according to the Shepherds in Luke 2,15, was the originator of the Information ( the Lord hath made known to us ). 

God the Son was explicit in Matthew 11, 2-5 when He identified Himself as "God" by referring John's disciples to Isaiah 35,4 - .....

God the Holy Spirit was explicit that Jesus would not fail when Simeon was promised he would not die until he had seen "The Lord's Christ" with his own eyes (Luke 2, 25-38). 

A failed Christ is not THE Christ spoken of in Sacred Scripture. 

If Christ had the "potential" to fail (sin and loose His Salvation) and it wasn't absolutely revealed the Baby Jesus was the real deal and would succeed Simeon would not have said the following. 

 

Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:  For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

Simeon WOULDN'T have been allowed to die because Jesus might of "slipped up"  right up until the day of Crucifixion. 

It should be noted that Mary marveled and pondered the incredible things she had been told about Jesus 

I suppose the next thing I will be told is that Simeon was a young whipper snapper of about 15 years of age and thus to protect what Ellen White said about Jesus having the potential of committing VICE Simeon died of natural causes after Jesus died on the cross. 

PKrause, what confuses you about these facts? Is it that you believe Simeon was a very young man who just wanted to depart Jerusalem and travel the world? 

[Gustave]

20 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

ONLY a failed Christ would need help in "mediating" from Mary, according to the RCC.

 

"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is LACKING IN CHRIST'S AFFLICTIONS for the sake of His body, that is, the Church".  Colossians 1, 24

Catholics don't look at this as proof that Christ failed but as proof of how He set up the Church. It's the same way we look at Mary. Look forward to talking in depth about Mary for a long time now and I'm understanding I've been formally welcomed to do it now. 

 

[BlessedMan]

40 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I'm understanding I've been formally welcomed to do it now. 

Of course, you are ALWAYS welcome here to discuss what you'd like us to know.

 

40 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Catholics don't look at this as proof that Christ failed

This is not a text I raised any questions about above. I did cite some specifics in my last post. Especially interested in Gen 3:15 :)

[phkrause]

On 2/9/2020 at 12:32 PM, Gustave said:

A failed Christ is not THE Christ spoken of in Sacred Scripture.

 

On 2/9/2020 at 12:32 PM, Gustave said:

PKrause, what confuses you about these facts? Is it that you believe Simeon was a very young man who just wanted to depart Jerusalem and travel the world? 

Because your texts or whatever you want to call them, don't say what your claiming they say!!!!!!! I'm not disagreeing that Christ wasn't going to fail, I'm saying they don't say "That Christ can't fail?"

[BlessedMan]

3 hours ago, phkrause said:

I'm saying they don't say "That Christ can't fail?"

thats correct. There is no such thing in EGW writings as "a failed Christ" no matter how many times someone bruits a single sentence (with lots of square bracket "emphasis") they cannot make it to mean something that it does not.

Quote

Will you not from this very day try to represent Christ to the world? You will have a refuge. You will be sunny Christians. We have been gloomy long enough. Had we not better come out of the cave and stand with God? Then we will have Christ with us so that we can talk of redemption as did the disciples when they had been with Jesus and learned of Him. Carry the light of Jesus. Carry it to your neighbors. {CTr 62.6}

 

[BlessedMan]

On 2/9/2020 at 11:12 AM, Gustave said:

 

"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is LACKING IN CHRIST'S AFFLICTIONS for the sake of His body, that is, the Church".  Colossians 1, 24

Catholics don't look at this as proof that Christ failed but as proof of how He set up the Church. It's the same way we look at Mary. Look forward to talking in depth about Mary for a long time now and I'm understanding I've been formally welcomed to do it now. 

 

It is The Pope, very clearly, who teaches the failed Christ. here is a quote from his latest homily at St Patrick's Cathedral

Quote

The cross shows us a different way of measuring success. Ours is to plant the seeds. God sees to the fruits of our labors. And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and not produce fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus Christ and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, the failure of the cross. SOURCE

Replacing what Christ's sole domain and agency stands for with "Mary" is further proof of this idea.

 

 

[phkrause]

12 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

Replacing what Christ's sole domain and agency stands for with "Mary" is further proof of this idea.

Exactly!!

[Gustave]

On 2/11/2020 at 3:10 PM, phkrause said:

 

Because your texts or whatever you want to call them, don't say what your claiming they say!!!!!!! I'm not disagreeing that Christ wasn't going to fail, I'm saying they don't say "That Christ can't fail?"

Read and contemplate what you said there. You said; 

"I'm not disagreeing that Christ wasn't going to fail, I'm saying that they don't say "that Christ can't fail". 

Scripture is explicit in both the Old and New Testament that Christ WASN'T going to fail and that absolutely precludes the possibility failure. 

That's like saying you don't disagree that Scripture says God is all powerful and immediately following up by saying the Scriptures don't say that God can't be less than all powerful. 

If God (who knows the end from the beginning) tells you how something is going to end up and moreover tells you to take it the bank what type of doctrine is it that would have you insert a caveat (Christ won't fail as long as He doesn't sin & loose His salvation)  when a caveat doesn't exist? 

 

I've been swamped with work the last several weeks and won't have much time to spend on the forums until May. I look forward to having the time to participate in these important discussions.