Are Roman Catholics Correct about SDA: Part 2

[miz3]

Quote:

Adventist Propaganda

White claimed to receive the first of several hundred visions in December of 1844. She gained recognition in Adventist circles as a prophetess and became the church’s leader. Over the next few decades, she provided guidance on almost every aspect of belief and worship, writing over fifty books commenting on health, education, finance, and other topics. Her works are held by her followers to be inerrant on matters of doctrine, as is the Bible, though they are on a slightly lower plane of honor than the Bible.

Her most important books, especially The Desire of the Ages and The Great Controversy, are frequently reprinted by Seventh-Day Adventist publishing houses in a variety of formats. They often appear with different covers and titles. For example, The Great Controversy is often marketed as America in Prophecy. They are printed whole or in excerpted form. Sometimes Ellen Gould White’s name appears on the cover, sometimes a less well-known form of her name appears (e.g., E. G. White), and sometimes her name does not appear on the outside of the book at all.

This allows Adventists to put White’s works in the hands of non-Adventists without alerting them that they are reading an Adventist publication until they are well into the work.

Adventist publishing houses also keep the terms "Seventh-Day" and "Adventist" out of their names. Typical Adventist and Adventist-related publishing houses have names including Inspiration Books, Amazing Truth Publications, Review & Herald Publishing Association, and Pilgrims’ Press.

This is because Adventists have always been regarded suspiciously by Evangelicals and have often been viewed as a fanatical cult (as have some of their offshoots, such as the Branch Davidians). Many Evangelical leaders even have asserted—incorrectly—that Adventists are not Christians, even though they believe in Christ’s divinity and use a valid Trinitarian form of baptism.

Often Adventist-related publishing houses conduct mass mailings of their literature to every home and post office box in a community. This has been done regularly with Amazing Truth Publications’ anti-Catholic volume, National Sunday Law.

Quote:

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials

presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.

Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827

permission to publish this work is hereby granted.

+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

Catholic Answers, 2020 Gillespie Way, El Cajon, CA 92020 USA

Main: 619-387-7200 | Fax: 619-387-0042

U.S. Orders: 888-291-8000 | Non-U.S. Orders: 619-387-7200

Copyright © 1979-2008 Catholic Answers. All Rights Reserved.

Usage outside our Permissions Guidelines requires our prior written consent.

Are Romans Catholics correct about SDA?

[Gustave]

That's from an apologetic website...

...Did you get that from Catholic answers?

...Apologetics on internet sites do not get Imprim's.

[miz3]

Gustave,

The footnote above states where the the info came from. The footnote is in a separate box immediately after the quote box.

[Gustave]

Gustave,

The footnote above states where the the info came from. The footnote is in a separate box immediately after the quote box.

It simply means in the apologetic nothing was found to exist that violated "Catholic Teaching"....

...I can assure you if you posted an affirmation that Christ was mutable on a Catholic or E.O. forum.

...You would find out rather quickly that THAT affirmation violently violates Catholic teaching.

...And aside from Sacred Scripture being quoted you could count on the determinations of the Canons of Nicaea.

[ClubV12]

I didn't see any glaring errors in that report, some possible exception's. Like, "several hundred visions". I've never see a number in relation to how many visions she had, I didn't think it was anywhere near "several hundred". But I suppose it could be. She had and writes about a "dream" she had before her first vision and the description of that dream sure sounds like it was from the Lord (just my opinion on that). She seems to have had a number of dreams, which I might not count as "visions" but maybe...

Another exception would be, again in my opinion, the statement of SDA's acceptance of her being "inerrant on matters of doctrine." That doesn't have the "ring of truth" to it for me. Perhaps the word "inerrant" is applicable from the stand point of her giving counsel on doctrinal matters. I get the very distinct impression that it was left to the founders to search the word, verify the doctrines, over time, polishing them, coming to a greater understanding of them. Sometimes EGW would comment on specific doctrinal points as being correct following such a search and determination. It's not like these "doctrines" were simply handed out on a gold platter and the matter was settled right then and there.

The Investigative Judgment I think is a good example. Hiram Edson opened the door, if you would, others began searching out his "opinion" on the matter. Ellen White weighed in with more light. But in the end, it was hard core bible study that became the foundation. Reviewed, researched, prayed about, studied among the brethren and approved by Ellen White. Well, at least thats the way I see it!

Also, "viewed as a fanatical cult" is not correct for the bulk of society and other learned men. I think that issue has been cleared up rather well, but yeah, SOME may still see it that way. As a "cult", but not so much these days.

[Overaged]

Its becoming apparent in most subjects here where I have read your posts, you are quite intent on winding the topic around to this one point of alleging that Adventists teach Arian views on Christ.

Therefore, why don't we try addressing in detail, and one by one, the specific references that you feel support your contention about that part of Adventist teaching? I will be interested to discuss those with you.

[Gustave]

I would love to overaged...

...I'll do my best to step up later on tonight.

[Overaged]

I would love to overaged...

...I'll do my best to step up later on tonight.

Hey, don't rush my friend. I got a feeling I will be gone for the rest of the week because of work; but if I am, look for me on the week end. Actually, it is a long week end here in Canada, so that's why I have a little time today!

[miz3]

It simply means in the apologetic nothing was found to exist that violated "Catholic Teaching"....

...I can assure you if you posted an affirmation that Christ was mutable on a Catholic or E.O. forum.

...You would find out rather quickly that THAT affirmation violently violates Catholic teaching.

...And aside from Sacred Scripture being quoted you could count on the determinations of the Canons of Nicaea

My posts on this question are NOT intended to be a debate or an affirmation that Jesus Christ was mutable.

This thread is asking whether or not the posted statements from this Roman Catholic source is correct in its assertions and assessments in regard to SDA.

[Gerr]

If by "inerrant" means = infallible, then the statement is false. She herself had never claimed it. She categorically states that ONLY God is infallible.

[phkrause]

If by "inerrant" means = infallible, then the statement is false. She herself had never claimed it. She categorically states that ONLY God is infallible.

[miz3]

GerryCabalo,

Since you said that Ellen White is NOT "inerrant" nor is Ellen White "infallible", I have a clarifying question (I am not trying to state a position but simply trying to understand your position).

Is Ellen White "inerrant" and also "infallible" in regard to SDA Doctrine?

If Ellen White "could be wrong" in regard to Doctrine is their a Doctrine in which was ever in error about?

Thanks for clarifying this for me!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't SDA Doctrines backed up by scripture? If so, what does Ellen White have to do with it?

[miz3]

rudywoofs,

Are you saying that Ellen Whites makes no comment at all on any of SDA Doctrines?

I didn't say Ellen White was the Source of SDA Doctrines, I merely asked my questions because she does indeed have things to say that are about SDA Doctrine. As such, the questions are:

Is Ellen White "inerrant" and also "infallible" in regard to SDA Doctrine?

If Ellen White "could be wrong" in regard to Doctrine is their a Doctrine in which was ever in error about?

[BobRyan]

Ellen White is just a person.

Any person that claims to have had a message directly from God by claiming that they have had a dream or a vision from God (as Numbers 12 points out) - is making the claim to some form of prophet.

One of the key tests of a prophet is whether the message said to be from God is in fact true or false. If the message is false - then the prophet cannot be a true prophet because God is infallible.

In other words miz3 - you are asking the question backwards.

The question is not "is Ellen White infallible"

The question is "is God infallible and if so did God really give those messages to Ellen White that she claimed He gave her?".

We claim God alone is infallible.

in Christ,

Bob

[miz3]

rudywoofs,

Are you saying Ellen White and her messages from God have nothing to do with SDA Docrine?

If that is true, then why do SDA cite her so much?

[miz3]

BobRyan,

Thank you for your clarifying remarks.

[Overaged]

rudywoofs,

Are you saying Ellen White and her messages from God have nothing to do with SDA Docrine?

If that is true, then why do SDA cite her so much?

[ClubV12]

"Her works are held by her followers to be inerrant on matters of doctrine."

While she was not infallible in all things, when it comes to ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE, I think the statement is true at face value. IF, your a "follower of Ellen White". The statement does not address HOW and WHEN various doctrinal points were "established". It speaks to the doctrinal points and Ellen Whites position on those points at the time the author made the statement. As such, I believe Ellen White is indeed "infallible" on established doctrinal points.

[Overaged]

"Her works are held by her followers to be inerrant on matters of doctrine."

While she was not infallible in all things, when it comes to ESTABLISHED DOCTRINE, I think the statement is true at face value. IF, your a "follower of Ellen White".

Those who accept the fact of Ellen G White's prophetic gift, and correctly understand it, according to the Bible, do not "follow Ellen G White;" they follow Jesus.

[ClubV12]

Overaged, semantics. "Follow Ellen White" merely means one who studies and accepts her various writings for what their worth. Some as in fact "personal opinion" and some as "specific revelations" from God. I myself am a "student of Ellen White", I think she's a terrific author!

...but aint nobody worshiping the messenger. :)

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

rudywoofs,

Are you saying Ellen White and her messages from God have nothing to do with SDA Docrine?

If that is true, then why do SDA cite her so much?

No. I'm saying that the Adventist Doctrines always include scriptural references. If Ellen White wanted to comment about any of the Doctrines, she had the right to do so. If Adventists today want to quote Ellen White about something, they have the right to do so. It doesn't make it right or wrong. It's simply a person's right to think whatever they want to think.

BTW, if Adventists didn't cite Ellen White, who would they cite? Aleister Crowley?

[miz3]

BTW, if Adventists didn't cite Ellen White, who would they cite? Aleister Crowley?

Just a wild shot: Maybe they could cite the Bible more often then cite her!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

BTW, if Adventists didn't cite Ellen White, who would they cite? Aleister Crowley?

Just a wild shot: Maybe they could cite the Bible more often then cite her!

**snort**

One doesn't "cite" the Bible to bolster a scriptural mandate.

I don't like your attitude.

[miz3]

Quote:

**snort**

I once saw a big fat pig do that and all four legs went out of joint and it just lay there in the mud unable to move!

Your hilarious, rudywoofs!

Being serious, I merely wanted to know that when Ellen White made comments on Doctrine either verbally or in writing was she or was she not "inerrant" or "infallible"?

IOW, when she commented on Doctrine was she ever citing her own opinion or was she always citing what God told her to say?

Thanks in advance for your answer rudywoofs, and any others who wish to chime in.