SDA doctrine compared to Catholic Doctrine

[BobRyan]

In some recent threads it appears that we are sometimes contrasting SDA doctrine to that of the RCC.

So maybe a thread dedicated to those differences.

On some doctrinal points (at least at a certain level) both groups find agreement.

Both agree that the Old and New Testament are scripture.

Both agree on general aspects of the Trinity - though the SDA view is more of a Triune Godhead. One God in three persons.

Both agree that the Law of God - the Ten Commandments are eternal - and are all binding on mankind in general. (Including the Sabbath commandment).

Both agree that the Sabbath is Biblically the "Lord's Day" going into the New Testament.

Both agree that there are sincere individuals in all groups that are saved.

Both agree that the Catholic Church is essentially what became of the vast majority of the early NT christian church over time.

==========================

Differences

SDA doctrine upholds the Isaiah 8:19 Bible doctrine that does not allow praying to the dead.

SDA doctrine upholds the Heb 7 and 8 doctrine that there is no longer a liturgical or ceremonial priesthood on earth.

SDA doctrine upholds the Heb 10 Bible doctrine that Christ offerred a "once for all sacrifice" completed at the Cross - not ongoing - not repeatable - not extendable.

SDA doctrine upholds the 4th commandment without edit - without usurpation by man-made traditions.

SDA doctrine upholds the priesthood of all believers mentioned in 1Peter 2:9 and Revelation 1. SDA doctrine affirms the prayer of Christ in Matt 6 where all mankind are welcome to go directly to God in prayer without the need of an earthly priest. No priests with magic powers to "mark the soul" or to "confect God" (powers supposedly retained even after being excommunicated etc).

SDA doctrine upholds the Acts 17:11 teaching on "sola scriptura testing" of doctrine. Hence -- no purgatory, no indulgences.

SDA doctrine upholds the non-immortality of the soul teaching that Christ offers in Matt 22 when Christ said "God is NOT the God of the dead".

SDA doctrine upholds the teaching of Christ in Matt 10:28 where we are told that BOTH body AND soul are destroyed (not preserved) in fiery hell.

SDA doctrine affirms the Exodus 20 command against worship using images and idols.

SDA doctrine rejects the notion of using armies to kill (or even "exterminate" to quote Lateran IV) those who do not share your doctrinal beliefs. We believe it is wrong to try and legislate the first 4 commandments regarding man's duty in worship to God.

SDA doctrine affirms believers baptism as we find it in Acts 2.

SDAs do NOT agree with recent RCC statements about alien life visiting earth -- except as it pertains to Angels vs fallen Angels (demons).

in Christ,

Bob

[Overaged]

In some recent threads it appears that we are sometimes contrasting SDA doctrine to that of the RCC.

So maybe a thread dedicated to those differences.

On some doctrinal points (at least at a certain level) both groups find agreement.

Both agree that the Old and New Testament are scripture.

Both agree that the Law of God - the Ten Commandments are eternal - and are all binding on mankind in general. (Including the Sabbath commandment).

Both agree that the Sabbath is Biblically the "Lord's Day" going into the New Testament.

I have studied with Roman Catholics in the past for over 5 years. It has been my experience that these "points of AGREEMENT" are infact the points of greatest deception.

While purporting to "believe" all these things, they infact mean something totally different than what we do.

[BobRyan]

One more point of agreement - both SDAs and Catholics agree with the Bible doctrine that it is possible for the saved born-again Christian to fall-away and become lost again.

Both agree with "free will" of the individual to choose life or death both pre-salvation and post-salvation.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

One more difference - SDA doctrine accepts the reliability and trustworthy nature of scripture - EVEN in Genesis 1-2:3. WE accept the literal 7 day creation week and so we reject (in doctrine) the theory of evolution and the idea of trying to marry evolutionism to the Bible.

By contrast the RCC explicitly promotes the self-conflicted belief in theistic evolutionism.

[doug yowell]

One more difference - SDA doctrine accepts the reliability and trustworthy nature of scripture - EVEN in Genesis 1-2:3. WE accept the literal 7 day creation week and so we reject (in doctrine) the theory of evolution and the idea of trying to marry evolutionism to the Bible.

By contrast the RCC explicitly promotes the self-conflicted belief in theistic evolutionism.

Would it be fair to say that both believe in the "authority" of the church leadership? While RCC believes it to be infallable, the SDA does not.

[Overaged]

That's actually quite true Doug...

[skyblue888]

Would it be fair to say that both believe in the "authority" of the church....

Doug yowell

_____________________________

Exactly. We were told that we were following in the track of Romanism, that we were a backsliding church narrowing the distance between ourselves and the papacy. The Lord gave a dream to Mrs. White in which she saw the leaders of the church walking two and two toward the building she was in turning into a catholic procession.

Something to do with "church autority"

sky

[Overaged]

Why were we told then that we were following in the track of Romanism, that we were a backsliding church narrowing the distance between ourselves and the papacy, and why did the Lord give a dream to Mrs. White in which she saw the leaders of the church in a catholic procession?

sky

Can you please give us the specific quote/passage you are referring to that tells us this?

[skyblue888]

We were told that we were following in the track of Romanism, that we were a backsliding church narrowing the distance between ourselves and the papacy. The Lord gave a dream to Mrs. White in which she saw the leaders of the church walking two and two toward the building she was in turning into a catholic procession.

Something to do with "church authority"

sky__________________

Over, these quotes have been posted so many times on this site.

The quote about the "catholic procession" is found in Testimonies, Vol.1,578. This is a very impressive dream with a warning for us in these last days. That's why she said that we had far more to fear from within than from without. (1 S.M.122)

The quote about following in the track of Romanism is found in Testimonies to Ministers. It is a whole section beginning on page 361. It is titled, The High-Handed Power. This is all about our church. Then bottom of page 362 she says that our leaders were following in the track of Romanism and there is more on this on page 363 to 366. Please read those pages very carefully and prayerfully.

The statement about our church being a backsliging church lessening the distance between itself and the papacy is found in in Signs of The Times, Feb.9, 1894:

"It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the papacy."

In 1903 the leaders in General Conference reversed the reformatory steps adopted at the 1901 General Conference. They put God aside and re-instituted the devisings of men in the matter of organization, thus following in the track of Romanism.

At every General Conference between 1888 and 1901, every two years, the Lord was asking for a change, for a reorganization. Only in 1901 did the leaders finally assented to the change but it did not last very long. Two years later they reverted back to the devisings of men: Men's constitutions with their by-laws, policy book, elections, resolutions, rules and regulations, hierarchy, to bring men under the control of men, see T.M.360,363,,, etc etc.. The 1901 constitution would have abolished all that and there were to be no president of the General Conference. The 1901 Constitution abolished that position and Christ was to be exalted as king and Head of the church over all things.

Over, all of this can be shown from the General Conference Bulletins of those years.

The change for which God had asked for many years ago was never given a chance.

"What we want now is a reorganization. We need to begin at the foundation and to build upon a different principle." E.G. White, 1901 General Conference Bulletin, p.25.

sky

[Overaged]

We were told that we were following in the track of Romanism, that we were a backsliding church narrowing the distance between ourselves and the papacy. The Lord gave a dream to Mrs. White in which she saw the leaders of the church walking two and two toward the building she was in turning into a catholic procession.

Something to do with "church authority"

sky__________________

Over, these quotes have been posted so many times on this site.

The quote about the "catholic procession" is found in Testimonies, Vol.1,578. This is a very impressive dream with a warning for us in these last days. That's why she said that we had far more to fear from within than from without. (1 S.M.122)

The quote about following in the track of Romanism is found in Testimonies to Ministers. It is a whole section beginning on page 361. It is titled, The High-Handed Power. This is all about our church. Then bottom of page 362 she says that our leaders were following in the track of Romanism and there is more on this on page 363 to 366. Please read those pages very carefully and prayerfully.

The statement about our church being a backsliging church lessening the distance between itself and the papacy is found in in Signs of The Times, Feb.9, 1894:

"It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the papacy."

In 1903 the leaders in General Conference reversed the reformatory steps adopted at the 1901 General Conference. They put God aside and re-instituted the devisings of men in the matter of organization, thus following in the track of Romanism.

At every General Conference between 1888 and 1901, every two years, the Lord was asking for a change, for a reorganization. Only in 1901 did the leaders finally assented to the change but it did not last very long. Two years later they reverted back to the devisings of men: Men's constitutions with their by-laws, policy book, elections, resolutions, rules and regulations, hierarchy, to bring men under the control of men, see T.M.360,363,,, etc etc.. The 1901 constitution would have abolished all that and there were to be no president of the General Conference. The 1901 Constitution abolished that position and Christ was to be exalted as king and Head of the church over all things.

Over, all of this can be shown from the General Conference Bulletins of those years.

The change for which God had asked for many years ago was never given a chance.

"What we want now is a reorganization. We need to begin at the foundation and to build upon a different principle." E.G. White, 1901 General Conference Bulletin, p.25.

sky

Ummm, I fear you are adding "interpretation" to these passages that is not actually there. Especially re the "Catholic procession" thing.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

We were told that we were following in the track of Romanism, that we were a backsliding church narrowing the distance between ourselves and the papacy. The Lord gave a dream to Mrs. White in which she saw the leaders of the church walking two and two toward the building she was in turning into a catholic procession.

Something to do with "church authority"

sky__________________

Over, these quotes have been posted so many times on this site.

The quote about the "catholic procession" is found in Testimonies, Vol.1,578. This is a very impressive dream with a warning for us in these last days. That's why she said that we had far more to fear from within than from without. (1 S.M.122)

The quote about following in the track of Romanism is found in Testimonies to Ministers. It is a whole section beginning on page 361. It is titled, The High-Handed Power. This is all about our church. Then bottom of page 362 she says that our leaders were following in the track of Romanism and there is more on this on page 363 to 366. Please read those pages very carefully and prayerfully.

The statement about our church being a backsliging church lessening the distance between itself and the papacy is found in in Signs of The Times, Feb.9, 1894:

"It is a backsliding church that lessens the distance between itself and the papacy."

In 1903 the leaders in General Conference reversed the reformatory steps adopted at the 1901 General Conference. They put God aside and re-instituted the devisings of men in the matter of organization, thus following in the track of Romanism.

At every General Conference between 1888 and 1901, every two years, the Lord was asking for a change, for a reorganization. Only in 1901 did the leaders finally assented to the change but it did not last very long. Two years later they reverted back to the devisings of men: Men's constitutions with their by-laws, policy book, elections, resolutions, rules and regulations, hierarchy, to bring men under the control of men, see T.M.360,363,,, etc etc.. The 1901 constitution would have abolished all that and there were to be no president of the General Conference. The 1901 Constitution abolished that position and Christ was to be exalted as king and Head of the church over all things.

Over, all of this can be shown from the General Conference Bulletins of those years.

The change for which God had asked for many years ago was never given a chance.

"What we want now is a reorganization. We need to begin at the foundation and to build upon a different principle." E.G. White, 1901 General Conference Bulletin, p.25.

sky

Ummm, I fear you are adding "interpretation" to these passages that is not actually there. Especially re the "Catholic procession" thing.

Please Over, feel free to tell me what it is exactly that I am adding that is not there.

Thank you.

sky

[skyblue888]

The Lord told us that we had far more to fear from within than from without but I don't think we take these words very seriously. When He shows us what it is we need to fear, we raise a red flag as if to say that it is not true what the Lord has said, that we are not following in the track of Romanism. What a terrible accusation for the Lord to make! We think that there is no way the Lord could have inspired Ellen White to say such a thing about us!

But we know what He said about His professed people in the days of Christ, that they had become the representatives of Satan. (D.A.36). Was that true? Of course it was. But how do you think the rulers of the Jews would have received these words? With scorn and total disbelief. They would have said that it was a lie and that they were always to be exalted as the church of God and that's exactly what they said.

"The Jewish people cherished the idea that they were the favorites of Heaven and that they were always to be exalted as the church of God. They were the children of Abraham they declared, and so firm did the foundation of their prosperity seem to them that they defied earth and heaven to disposess them of their rights. But by lives of unfaithfulness they were preparing for the condemnation of Heaven, and for separation from God." C.O.L.294.

Now notice these very important words from the same chapter:

"Because they failed of fulfilling God's purpose, the children of Israel were set aside, and God's call was extended to other peoples. If these too (adventists for that matter) prove unfaithful, will they not in like manner be rejected?" C.O.L.304. *parenthesis supplied

So we see that as a people we are not out of the woods especially when the Lord tells us that we are a backslicing church following in the track of Romanism. In the book Testimonies to Ministers, we find a warning about church authority: "They were determined to bring the individuals to their terms; they would rule or ruin." And on page 363, she says, "Rule, rule, has been their course of action."

Is that not following in the track of Rome?

These things were written more for us then for them. We are now more than a century after this warning was written.

The words of Christ to the first disciples are applicable to His followers to the close of time:

"What I say unto you, I say unto all, Watch." Mark 13:37.

sky

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

One more difference - SDA doctrine accepts the reliability and trustworthy nature of scripture - EVEN in Genesis 1-2:3. WE accept the literal 7 day creation week and so we reject (in doctrine) the theory of evolution and the idea of trying to marry evolutionism to the Bible.

By contrast the RCC explicitly promotes the self-conflicted belief in theistic evolutionism.

Would it be fair to say that both believe in the "authority" of the church leadership? While RCC believes it to be infallable, the SDA does not.

The RCC claims that their own "Magesterium" (Cardinals and popes) has infallible ability to interpret scripture and create doctrine.

All churches have their own Magesterium - even SDAs. But we do not teach that it is our Magesterium that defines or creates doctrine.

Thus Ted Wilson does not proclaim his own views on doctrine as if they are by virtue of his saying them "ex Cathedra" - binding on all SDAs.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

It appears that the "new trick " for the RCC is to not only embrace evolutionism - but also to embrace the "aliens from space" story telling.

in Christ,

Bob

[doug yowell]

It appears that the "new trick " for the RCC is to not only embrace evolutionism - but also to embrace the "aliens from space" story telling.

in Christ,

Bob

Vewy twickey.Wait...you mean my wife is not really from Venus??

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

It appears that the "new trick " for the RCC is to not only embrace evolutionism - but also to embrace the "aliens from space" story telling.

in Christ,

Bob

Vewy twickey.Wait...you mean my wife is not really from Venus??

Reality is tough sometimes Doug.

[skyblue888]

The RCC claims that their own "Magesterium" (Cardinals and popes) has infallible ability to interpret scripture and create doctrine.

All churches have their own Magesterium - even SDAs. But we do not teach that it is our Magesterium that defines or creates doctrine.

Thus Ted Wilson does not proclaim his own views on doctrine as if they are by virtue of his saying them "ex Cathedra" - binding on all SDAs.

in Christ,

Bob

_______________

What did the Lord mean by this, then, in regard to us:

"The high-handed power that has been developed as though position has made men gods makes me afraid and ought to cause fear. It is a curse wherever and by whomsoever it is exercised. This lording it over God's heritage will create such a disgust of man's jurisdiction that a state of insubordination will result." T.M.361.

Is this not following in the track of Romanism?

sky

[doug yowell]

No.

[John317]

Another major difference between the SDA church and Roman Catholicism is that the latter accept church tradition as an equal authority with the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church also accepts the Apocrypha.

Perhaps you already mentioned these things. If so, I apologize for posting them again.

[jasd]

>>Another major difference between the SDA church and Roman Catholicism is that the latter accept church tradition as an equal authority with the Bible.<<

Perhaps, they are not justified to place "tradtion" on equal footing with Writ; however,

2 thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

>>The Roman Catholic Church also accepts the Apocrypha.<<

You probably forgot:

“... I saw that the Apocrypha was the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should understand it. I saw that the Bible was the standard Book, that will judge us at the last day.” —EGW; 16 Manuscript Release Page 34

Our Bibles, for the most part, contained the Apocrypha until 1926 when it was finally left out of future printings - at the behest of the British and American Bible Societies.

Don't know that they should have been the arbiters...

[Overaged]

Another major difference between the SDA church and Roman Catholicism is that the latter accept church tradition as an equal authority with the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church also accepts the Apocrypha.

Perhaps you already mentioned these things. If so, I apologize for posting them again.

Well; they actually, in practice, see "Tradition" as superseding the Bible, if you understand their point of view.

[John317]

>>Another major difference between the SDA church and Roman Catholicism is that the latter accept church tradition as an equal authority with the Bible.<<

Perhaps, they are not justified to place "tradtion" on equal footing with Writ; however,

2 thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

No, that verse does not justify the Catholic position of placing church tradition on an equal footing with the Bible. Actually, as Overaged points out, the RCC places the teaching authority of the Church and tradition above that of the Scriptures.

The point is, then, that when there's a contradiction between the Bible and tradition, tradition must be rejected. Yet the Catholic Church accepts tradition even when it clearly contradicts Scripture.

[John317]

>>The Roman Catholic Church also accepts the Apocrypha.<<

You probably forgot:

... I saw that the Apocrypha was the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should understand it. I saw that the Bible was the standard Book, that will judge us at the last day. EGW; 16 Manuscript Release Page 34

That EGW quote doesn't mean that the Apocrypha is inspired or should be a part of our the Protestant Bible.

It does contain many good things, but that doesn't mean it was inspired of God. It also contains much that is false.

You'll notice Ellen White never again mentioned the Aprocrypha.

[John317]

Our Bibles, for the most part, contained the Apocrypha until 1926 when it was finally left out of future printings - at the behest of the British and American Bible Societies.

Don't know that they should have been the arbiters...

Not true. It was taken out of our Bibles long before.

Wikipedia:

Quote:

All King James Bibles published before 1666 included the Apocrypha. In 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. Since then most modern editions of the Bible and reprintings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section.

I have a copy of the 1611 edition which contains the Apocrphya. I've read it several times. They are false books, containing false doctrines; but they do have some good, beautiful parts.

[ClubV12]

She made this statement in 1850. For her very early work did she already have assistants writing down and preserving accurately what she stated at the time?

I am thinking of how poor, literally, she was at this time. Even food was an issue she had to deal with!