SDAs & Mary

[BlessedMan]

On 1/22/2022 at 9:07 PM, Gustave said:

 

Evidently ONLY when the Scriptures support SDA teachings.

 That explicitly is Ellen White saying EVEN Sacred Scripture is subject to distinctive SDA doctrines - unless you have a novel interpretation, you're willing to share with me. 

Another intended context manner of explaining this quote that you have gerrymandered here would simply be to note the intended context of the author. It is actually quite the opposite of what you have stated. The claim is simply that our "distinctive" beliefs are based on scripture alone, and that it is unwise to let anyone take that away from us. That is certainly not unlike the RC statements such as enclosed below.

Of course, they like to first state that anyone who disagrees with said ideas you stated about "us" that we are either "fundamentalists" or "Bible believing Christians." And they always do this in the pejorative context.

"common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility" is the apologetic" way of dealing with this.

Quote

 

Vatican II’s Explanation

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium 25).

 

Given the Vatican's stated definition of "infallible" here, it would only stand to reason how that other denominations would have similar beliefs about their understandings in truth and doctrines; which btw should be one and the same thing, but often are not.

It is unfortunate that we are seeing the struggle here to switch the topic to alleged EGW errors, and avoid the discussion on Mary. Sometimes doing a comparative study would be appropriate but it just looks like yet another series of "pot-shots" at EGW, even though, as Gregory has stated, you did get a couple of points "right."

My current understandings of "Mary" could be summarized by just saying when that name/word is mentioned, I think both RCs and Protestants could agree that "Mary" is essentially a suite of doctrines that together, collectively discuss her various shades of grey inherent in Catholic dogma about her. Immaculate conception, mother of God, her intercession for us today, all such things from your beliefs could be simply referred to as "Mary."

Its much like what we say when we mention "the cross." Whenever anyone uses that phrase, we can safely conclude that "the cross" is also a suite of doctrines, which collectively state the word of Eph 2:13

Quote

"you who are far off are made near by the blood of Christ."

Some of the doctrines that could be included in "the cross" would obviously be His incarnation, His life here on earth, His death on the cross, and His resurrection, to nae a few that collectively classifies as "the cross."

Your own beliefs, and any Bible version worth it's "salt" would agree with the idea that anyone or anything that lessens or negates the need for "the cross," should be anathema to all Christians.

I think that given the subject matter of this thread, the following types of things from catholic sources on Mary can and should be discussed:
 

Quote

 

John Paul also says: “In this way Mary’s motherhood continues unceasingly in the Church as the mediation which intercedes, and the Church expresses her faith in this truth by invoking Mary ‘under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix.” White, Mary—another Redeemer? p. 108.

“There is no better way to approach her Son than through her” (John Paul II address in Nagasaki, February 26, 1981

“In the evangelizing history of the Church, the Virgin Mary has occupied and continues to occupy a singularly unique place. It has rightly been said: ‘to Christ through Mary.” (John Paul II Address in Mendoza, Argentina, October 12, 1980)

“Her ascent of Calvary and her standing at the foot of the cross together with the beloved disciple were a special sort of sharing in the redeeming death of her son.”
John Paul II in Salvifici Dolores, p. 25.

 

All such statements by popes or prelates or priests seem really far out there, if I may use the term, respectfully. I seriously do not want to come across as questioning your own faith in Christ, your sincerity as a Christian, or your perceived standing with God. I am just a tatterdemalion/ragamuffin protestant trying to figure things out. I would really appreciate being able to discuss some of these RC statements with you or anyone else interested.  It would be a good chance for you to prove us wrong.

And hopefully a witness for Christ. ?

Edited January 25, 2022 by BlessedMan
grammar, spelling corrections

[BlessedMan]

On 1/15/2022 at 10:46 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

I expected and understand disagreement with the article.  To suggest Jesuist infiltration is to fail to understand Catholic views of Adventists.  We are not important enough for Catholics to want to infiltrate us.

lol, I think we do a lot of our own "infiltration" activities with one another.  IMHO. (was that humble?)

[Gustave]

Quote

Blessedman said: Serious" SDA "scholars" do not all agree with this idea. This is an essential point to make here.

The below quote was posted immediately prior to the comment you made above. 

Ellen White
"We are NOT to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. . . . And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, IF such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God” (1SM 161; CW 32; The Early Elmshaven Years 426).

I'm guessing you'd agree that Ellen White just said that distinctive Adventist doctrines were / are pillar's and also that God had sustained the foundation (Adventism) counting back 50 years to the origination of the group. Look at what Ellen White says below. 

“Those who seek to remove the old landmarks are not holding fast; they are not remembering how they have received and heard. Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ, are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor.” {E. G. White, Manuscript Release No.760, p. 9} 1905

Ellen White identified "The Personality of God" to be a Doctrinal pillar of SDA Faith. I'm telling you openly that THE PERSONALITY OF GOD Doctrine of the SDA's as promulgated by the SDA Pioneers and affirmed as truth by the prophetic Ministry of Ellen White is incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity. For the sake of time, I'm going to ask you how many quotes from the Pioneers and Ellen White where they bluntly say this would it take for you to admit I've not misrepresented this? 

I'm claiming what I am based on the very numerous and lengthy articles where the Personality of God is described as THE CORE Doctrine of the Adventist faith. 8 years after the death of Ellen White the Seventh-Day Adventist Educational Department. In an article titled "TEXTBOOK PROBLEMS" admitted the following: 

Quote

REPORT OF THE EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT said: I dare say that we are the only Christian body who are so much confronted with this difficulty, not only in India but all over the world, since we have very definite and important reasons for establishing our own schools.

As soon as our schools are opened the first difficulty we meet is what to put into the hands of our children, in their mother tongue, as they progress in its study. There are many "Readers" produced by the C. L. S and by Indian educators. In our school at Prakasapuram, we have used many kinds, but we prefer the latest publications of the C, L. S. to all the previous ones. In the former C. L. S. Readers we have come across certain anti-Scriptural expressions here and there on the personality of God, immortality of the soul, and the fate of the wicked. In such
cases we used to draw thick lines over those expresions in the books for the lower classes and not assign
them for lessons. But in the classes where students have little knowledge of the truth, we leave such points to be discussed, and take that occasion to teach them the truth concerning those topics mentioned in the Readers. Eastern Tidings, April 15, 1923 No. 8

The "Protestant" Christian educational books created by Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. were problematic for use in SDA Schools BECAUSE it was believed they taught unscriptural or "ANTI-SCRIPTURAL" expressions pertaining to "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD", immortality of the soul, and the fate of the wicked. 

It appears you have zero issues admitting that SDA teaching about the immortality of the soul is incompatible with Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. teaching on the same but disagree when it comes time to acknowledging the same issue exists whereas the Trinity is concerned. 

The Personality of God Doctrine holds that God is a material flesh "BEING" with every member and part of a perfect man. Christ is another "BEING", a separate material flesh hominid. It was argued by the Pioneers that the Trinity Doctrine DESTROYED the personality [flesh hominid body] of God because the Trinity affirmed that God was SIMPLE and COULDN'T consist of parts. The SDA Trinity held (and still does) that Christ is PART OF GOD so that it could be said "part of God" could have been destroyed, lost, etc. 

I'll wait for your response to this so I can tailor mine to directly address where you think my chain of logic is weak. 

 

[Gustave]

Quote

Blessedman said: 

Given the Vatican's stated definition of "infallible" here, it would only stand to reason how that other denominations would have similar beliefs about their understandings in truth and doctrines; which btw should be one and the same thing, but often are not. 

 

Biblically that's how it works. 

1 John 2, 19: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

The Apostles were commissioned by Christ and given power to promulgate the Gospel. Acts Chapter 15 provides example enough that claiming you have authority to be a minister of the Gospel doesn't equate to having authority. This Chapter explains rather plainly that sincere Christians spread out from Jerusalem and "subverted" Church with false teachings that had to be directly addressed. 

Now, like back then the Priests who were teaching in alignment with what the Church declared were in fact teaching infallibly & now just like back then individuals who departed from what the Church declared are false teachers. 

 

[BlessedMan]

4 hours ago, Gustave said:

 

Biblically that's how it works. 

1 John 2, 19: Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

Thank you Gustave. And so we see here by your post, that there is a process, some advice if you will, in indentifying said anti-Christs.  And because the story of Mary, as contained in the Bible, is a beautiful story. I really enjoy that story, for sure I am always interested in discussing her story. The only reason I gave the above quotes from Catholic sources was because its a quick, easy way to define some of the central Catholic ideas that everyone who is a "true" Catholic must adhere to, if they want to remain one. If it's from scripture, I am happy to discuss it. lead the way my brother. ?

[Gustave]

Infallibility is an extension of what happened in Acts 15. Some well-intentioned people who didn't have any authority to teach were claiming salvation required certain rubrics be observed. The Church met in Council and as the Bible said -  it was the decision of the Holy Spirit and the Apostolic Authority what and what not to "bind" on believers. Individuals either accepted Apostolic authority or they protested against it and formed their own "faith community". It's really as simple as that. 

The points I made on the Trinity subject are very serious, those issues are not minor or trifling.