Is Adventist Pelagianism The Same As Roman Catholic Pelagianism?

[BlessedMan]

Shortly after slapping a woman who grabbed his arm; the Pope put out a call for peace and "ecological conversion."  Right away I was reminded of The Hooey Doctrine. Sad to say, but most of us do struggle with setting a good example.

Another article caught my eye while reading the one above; and in it, The Pope was decrying what he called "ancient heresies," (Gnosticism, Pelagianism).

Quote

Perhaps more prevalent in the church than an arrogant Gnosticism are the many new forms of Pelagianism. Again, there is ultimately no room for God and God’s grace in a Pelagian framework. Salvation and holiness get reduced to our own powers, success and outward actions, which lead individuals to “feel superior to others because they observe certain rules or remain intransigently faithful to a particular Catholic style” (No. 49). SOURCE

IS there a "particular Adventist style" that is ruining the church today?  I went to the EGW site to search for quotes about "legalism," because it seems to me that most of the above could in one way or another, come under such a heading:
 

Quote

 

Sometimes non-believing friends interpret the Seventh-day Adventist emphasis on character development as legalism and a system of salvation by works. But Adventists have a realistic understanding of man's grave limitations. Consequently, their optimism has not to do with their own ability to change and grow; it has to do with God's ability to restore His creatures, which is so clearly documented in such passages as 2 Peter 1.(PCP 75)

Christ came to our world at a time when moral power was fast disappearing from among men. Genuine religion had become corrupted. In its place formality and legalism had reared the most rigid exactions. A round of superstitions and externals was made essential, while inward piety was, in a great measure, only a pretense. As the necessity for purity of heart was lost sight of, outward forms and ceremonies multiplied. Wickedness of every kind triumphed. The Bible was misapplied, and modelled to suit the ideas and imaginations of men. The cleansing of hands and cups and utensils was considered of more consequence than the purification of the soul. From age to age these maxims and traditions had been cherished; and with each succeeding age additional inventions had been received with credulity, thus closing the way for the presentation of righteousness and truth.(Ms 80, 1896, Par 2)

Part of the problem arose because Adventists saw in the general religious world the danger of antinomianism (the belief that faith, as mental assent, is sufficient and that obedience to law is legalism). Spurious concepts of justification and sanctification permeated various denominations. Many Adventists thought that Jones and Waggoner represented a crack in the door that would lead to these prevalent errors. (MOL 1968) SOURCE

 

I think it would be safe to say that said "error" has crept in, and lies in wait for the unsuspecting. One of the quotes I saw from the above page seemed to hit the nail right on the head; (Isa 22:3), and it seems apparent that EGW did give an accurate synopsis of the state of things, that could also apply to the Church today?

Quote

The sanctuary-doctrine crisis in 1905 was one more result of misunderstanding the role of the Holy Spirit in the salvation process. Whenever one neglects the work of the Holy Spirit in the relationship between the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus (Revelation 14:12), the tendency is either toward cold legalism or hot feelings and fervent individualism. Or error arises when the work of the Holy Spirit is de-emphasized when focusing on the substitutionary death of Christ; or, when one focuses on the “indwelling Spirit” to the neglect of Christ as Sacrifice and High Priest. Misunderstanding Christ’s double role as Sacrifice and enabling High Priest set the stage for the Holy Flesh Movement, the pantheistic crisis, and, later, the sanctuary challenge.

SOURCE

I wonder, what is my "cup of soup" today? (Gen 27:15-20). Do I even know what the "unfeigned love" ( 1 Pet 1:22 ), of scripture means?

Most of us would have stronger leanings towards one or the other in pelagianism, or antinomianism. Although I can think of some exceptions, whom I personally am privileged to know. One of them sums it up nicely:

Quote

"Jesus just loves everyone - so much. He died for everyone."

THAT person actually doesn't even see most of the things in the church that I feel need to be criticised! No matter how carefully I try to "explain!"

My friend's primary concern is that

Quote

"God just loves everyone, so much. It makes me cry, with tears of joy..."

More Quotes On Legalism

*

Pelagianism
    n 1: the theological doctrine put forward by Pelagius which
         denied original sin and affirmed the ability of humans to
         be righteous; condemned as heresy by the Council of Ephesus
         in 431

antinomianism
    n 1: the theological doctrine that by faith and God's grace a
         Christian is freed from all laws (including the moral
         standards of the culture)

 

[stinsonmarri]

On 1/3/2020 at 3:31 PM, BlessedMan said:

IS there a "particular Adventist style" that is ruining the church today?  I went to the EGW site to search for quotes about "legalism," because it seems to me that most of the above could in one way or another, come under such a heading:

I read your entire comment and I feel we worry to much and play around with words and use them to be make up excuses. The word legalism means excessive adherence to law or formula. Notice, it said law or formula. What law is the question. The Pharisees were excessive because they felt they had the right to interpret the Law of YAHWEH. Protestants and SDA also feel it is excessive to keep the Holy days. Now, keep in mind YAHWEH never said they were the Hebrews, IsraEL, or the so call Jews day! HE said very clear they were HIS Holy Days, which included the Sabbath. Now, today like the Pharisees the SDA are so excessive about the Sabbath! They have come up with that Sunday is the mark of the beast and SDA will be persecuted because of the Sabbath. However, the Bible does not say that at all. It says the opposite! First, it never said anything about Seventh Day Adventist, it talks about a remnant that will keep THE FATHER'S Commandments all of them and the Testimony of YAHSHUA! I have never read that a mark biblical means a day! 

Here, is what is the problem the Law of THE MOST HIGH many Bible Scholar want to blame it on the Old Testament. They want to state that the Law YAHWEH first given to the ancient people was to hard and they could not keep it. Their excuse is that YAHSHUA came and gave us grace (they must did not read where Noah receive grace), we do not have to keep all of the Law. Just some! So the word legalism was defined that if you keep them all you were being to excessive. The meaning actually does not fit the word. Legal is not excessive it is obedience due to love and not a requirement like work. Love is something that bring enjoyment and appreciation and then you respond back with a desire or a commitment to show that love! 

Blessings!

[BlessedMan]

2 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

Now, today like the Pharisees the SDA are so excessive about the Sabbath! They have come up with that Sunday is the mark of the beast and SDA will be persecuted because of the Sabbath. However, the Bible does not say that at all

 

2 hours ago, stinsonmarri said:

it talks about a remnant that will keep THE FATHER'S Commandments all of them and the Testimony of YAHSHUA!

well, I am happy that someone took the time to read my post re "pelagianism!"  ler er rip! ?

[stinsonmarri]

On 1/14/2020 at 11:45 PM, BlessedMan said:

 

well, I am happy that someone took the time to read my post re "pelagianism!"  ler er rip! ?

I took the time because there are many people who are so confuse because we don't actually understand Daniel Chapter Seven. SDA has crippled themselves with false thoughts on the four beasts. All the beast in Daniel Seven were dealing false worship and if you compare the two beasts in Daniel Eight you would notice they are not the same. The Ram in Eight is the Bear in Seven; the Goat in Eight is the Leopard in Seven. Why are these two animals different in two of Daniels Chapters. Looking at Eight first, those animal are the exact symbols that each countries are recognized by their flag today. Just like America is recognized by the bald eagle, it is their political power. The beasts in Chapter Seven is their religious power. Legalism, Pelagianism and Antinomianism all three have to do false worship versus true worship and it all starts in Daniel Chapter Seven. To prove this and to show clear understanding is to see actually what is the fourth beast?

All Protestants that came to America felt the same way so, all of the SDA Pioneers who came from these churches believe on thing and held fast to that belief collectively. It became a dominant factor in denominational structure that they held onto why the other Protestants in the 19th century began to change their tune. Slowly, the SDA wanted moved away from the label that was given them of being an occult, so they started to let their firm belief to crumble. The problem begins, when YAHWEH sent two men to present to them more truth and like IsraEL of old they rejected it and abandon these two ministers-Jones and Waggoner. This was the 1888 message and it had to do with your subject Blessed Man.

All of the Protestants Churches felt that the Catholic Church was the fourth beast. EGW and others felt that Daniel needed more understanding. The pioneers were correct to believed that Daniel and Revelation was the same book. The problem they still tried to separated the two instead of combining them together as one book. That is what the Bible said to do in Dan 12:4. Even EGW said it herself in TM p. 114 But, where a ripple begin even with the pioneers was the book written by Uriah Smith and his hold on the church lead the church down the wrong path.

The fourth beast was believed by all Protestants to be Pagan Rome and Papal Rome and it is not, no have it ever been!The fourth beast was all three beast beliefs wrapped into the fourth beast. Was pagan Rome in the beast of course, its iron teeth, but the mouth and head was a lion, the claws were brass and it stamp like a bear the residue. Daniel did not notice the seven heads he only notice the original at that period of time. Dan 7:20 The 10 horn were in the one head that Daniel noticed and keep in mind all of these things did make it different then the other three separately. From within the 10 horns came the papacy, but three horns were plucked up. All these horns had to do with kingdoms that was dealing with false worship. The papacy had control of the others except the ones who follow the Jesuit priest that is known for Arianism. He still was a Catholic priest that moved away from the original belief of the Catholic church. So, three other nations eventually took their place to make of the 10 kingdoms of Europe. If you would notice what was the two most important things the Catholic Church wanted to change? Time and Laws and she has attempted to do both, the Gregorian calendar that the world uses today, though we don't talk about at all in our church. There a great important truth behind this long kept secret. Secondly and most outward is YAHWEH'S Laws!

Then here comes John and the story of the beast continues. It is the same beast in it's complete form that Daniel was shown but did not address! Why because YAHWEH had him to focus on the beast as all three united together under one umbrella. When John see the beast he see the head of lion, feet of bear and the body of a leopard. The body of the leopard is what is making the beast so powerful. It is Greece her laws, her religion that we call theology and her politic's all intermingle together going against YAHWEH'S Law! HIS Laws is "Legalism," that is too excessive which are against man's "Antinomianism,"  a concept which rejects laws or legalism and argues against moral, religious or social norms; and "Pelagianism," the theological doctrine  that the original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special DIVINE aid or assistance! So, faith and YAHWEH GRACE meted out to us by the cruel torture and then crucified unto death, HIS SON means nothing? Christians, ( you need to know why the Athenians called Paul that name and ask is that the name Peter, James, John and Paul actually called themselves), think they have the power to be freed from YAHWEH'S Laws? USA say they are people of laws, really! Then, explain what's happening now in this country! Let me make this very clear if you can't keep all of YAHWEH'S Laws, how are you going to keep man made laws? Excessive!

Happy Sabbath!

[Gustave]

On 1/3/2020 at 12:31 PM, BlessedMan said:

Shortly after slapping a woman who grabbed his arm; the Pope put out a call for peace and "ecological conversion."  Right away I was reminded of The Hooey Doctrine. Sad to say, but most of us do struggle with setting a good example.

Another article caught my eye while reading the one above; and in it, The Pope was decrying what he called "ancient heresies," (Gnosticism, Pelagianism).

IS there a "particular Adventist style" that is ruining the church today?  I went to the EGW site to search for quotes about "legalism," because it seems to me that most of the above could in one way or another, come under such a heading:
 

I think it would be safe to say that said "error" has crept in, and lies in wait for the unsuspecting. One of the quotes I saw from the above page seemed to hit the nail right on the head; (Isa 22:3), and it seems apparent that EGW did give an accurate synopsis of the state of things, that could also apply to the Church today?

I wonder, what is my "cup of soup" today? (Gen 27:15-20). Do I even know what the "unfeigned love" ( 1 Pet 1:22 ), of scripture means?

Most of us would have stronger leanings towards one or the other in pelagianism, or antinomianism. Although I can think of some exceptions, whom I personally am privileged to know. One of them sums it up nicely:

THAT person actually doesn't even see most of the things in the church that I feel need to be criticised! No matter how carefully I try to "explain!"

My friend's primary concern is that

More Quotes On Legalism

*

Pelagianism
    n 1: the theological doctrine put forward by Pelagius which
         denied original sin and affirmed the ability of humans to
         be righteous; condemned as heresy by the Council of Ephesus
         in 431

antinomianism
    n 1: the theological doctrine that by faith and God's grace a
         Christian is freed from all laws (including the moral
         standards of the culture)

 

Pelagianism just didn't affirm the ability of humans to be righteous (which Catholicism teaches can be attained), Pelagianism taught that people could attain the Salvation by themselves - claiming that Grace and the Merits of Christ could make it easier. 

[Gustave]

Years ago when I was more involved in Apologetics I purchased a book written by a Seventh-day Adventist named Dr. Edwin Zackrison titled: "IN THE LOINS OF ADAM  A HISTORICAL STUDY OF ORIGINAL SIN IN ADVENTIST THEOLOGY". ISBN0-595-30716-7

At the beginning of the book there was a memorable point made by the author:

"When I attended seminary, the for the first time I heard people say that Adventists don't believe in original sin. Then I heard that conservatives believe in original sin and liberals don't. Then I noticed that some seminary professors played down original sin and others explained their theology through a radical use of the term. But in all this discussion I never read a definitive, historical study of original sin in Adventist literature. Occasionally the term would emerge in a chapter of an Adventist book. I read some articles pro and con that relied on the writings of Ellen White and came to the opposite conclusions - -  a curious phenomenon that I long ago learned was not limited to this discussion." 

In my view the author was fairly honest and blunt in his assessment of "his" religions short comings on this topic. Zackrison essentially covers the first 50 or so years of the Adventist movement and their treatment of the topic, he also quotes several high up SDA's that were contemporary to him. All in all it was a good read. The basic premise (that he backs up in the book) is that Adventists (due to their "present truth doctrine"  worked more toward "corrective"  theology as opposed to systematic theology. 

 

[BlessedMan]

On 1/25/2020 at 10:32 AM, Gustave said:

In my view the author was fairly honest and blunt in his assessment

Well, I doubt anyone is questioning his "honesty" and it is very unlikely that anyone cares these days about being "blunt."

History tends to get very personal, and activist in nature. Meaning its up to whoever is reading it to check out the references.

"Original sin" doesn't have to be called that. People call it a lot of things. depends who we are talking about. Inactive members often tell a different story than active. Nothing at all new here.

On 1/25/2020 at 10:32 AM, Gustave said:

he also quotes

Everyone with a pedestal to stand on "quotes." Doesn't mean a hill of beans without proven context that can be easily verified by the general public.

On 1/25/2020 at 10:32 AM, Gustave said:

"corrective"  theology as opposed to systematic theology. 

"Systematic" theology is definitely "systematic. But whose "system" are we talking about?  "Corrective" theology has no obvious meaning.

On 1/25/2020 at 9:48 AM, Gustave said:

Pelagianism just didn't affirm the ability of humans to be righteous (which Catholicism teaches can be attained),

Well; I quoted the dictionary definition of "pelagianism" so whats your point here? The dictionary definition said all this. I am finding that "Catholicism" doesn't always mean "the Bible." (yes, I am aware of the RCC teachings on "tradition." ). Jesus apparently has a much different definition of "tradition:"

The apostle rightly called it "your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers," (1 Pet 1:18)

I would imagine thats why Jesus called it: "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down..." (Mark 7:13)

The alleged "first church"  laid great stress on this kind of tradition/ritual. They followed endless rules, both intricate and troublesome, as to ablutions and outward ceremonials. They still do. So long as their devotees are careful in these traditional, minor observances, they were permitted a wide license so far as the weightier matters of the Law were concerned. This is a natural tendency of the human heart. It is a sad thing to see "the church" reduce its religious life to an outward and literal obedience, if only its thoughts may be unhampered.

Pelagianism is very dependent upon this form of "tradition." But its like I said in the OP. RCCs and Protestants have this happening.

On 1/3/2020 at 1:31 PM, BlessedMan said:

Shortly after slapping a woman who grabbed his arm; the Pope put out a call for peace and "ecological conversion."  Right away I was reminded of The Hooey Doctrine. Sad to say, but most of us do struggle with setting a good example.

Another article caught my eye while reading the one above; and in it, The Pope was decrying what he called "ancient heresies," (Gnosticism, Pelagianism).

It is my current understanding that this is what The Pope teaches. Pelagianism. That look on The Pope's face just after he hit that woman told the story (for me) what happens when "tradition" is violated.