| Author | Message | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7634 Registered: 9-2006  |
I was thinking more on the lines of healing and so fourth, not spiritual gifts. I don't believe the spiritual gifts are in operation at all in the Adventist church, they do pray for one another for healing. I'm not sure how to interpret that in Adventasee either.  New word..Adventasee. River | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2352 Registered: 7-2007 |
Ric_b; It's true that the two doctrines of "transubstantiation" and the "IJ" are two distinct doctrines that don't have anything to do with each other. But a Catholic, like an SDA; still has to earn his salvation. Jesus didn't do it all in the Catholic and SDA religions. In both religions, Jesus made it possible for the sinner to "earn his way to heaven." Say, if a Catholic goes to a priest, confesses his sins and does his penance and thereby supposedly "gets his sins forgiven," he will still "go to hell" if he commits a mortal sin and then dies before he can confess it to a priest. What difference does it make how someone is killed? He's just as dead! So if the SDA stabs a person in the heart and the RCC shoots a person in the heart, what difference does it make? When I was in the Army, I learned about difference ways that the enemy can kill a person. For example, both a nerve agent and a choking agent can kill a soldier dead. Will the parents of the deceased cry out, saying: "Oh why did our son have to die of a nerve agent?! Oh why, oh why didn't he die of a choking agent?!" Satan doesn't care what a person believes, as long has the person doesn't believe the truth and get saved. He doesn't care of the person believes in Mary or Buddha or Ellen White or Joseph Smith or the Watchtower or.... he doesn't care what lie one buys as long as one doesn't buy the truth! | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2353 Registered: 7-2007 |
People generally think and Roman Catholics themselves think they started from the apostolic root. But the root stayed pure until 300 AD and then the first cultic bush which was the RCC, started. It rose in the shade of the Christian church, but wasn't the Christian church. It was pure paganism with a thin veneer of Christianity over the top. That bush grew so large, that it blocked out the true tree, but the true tree was still there. The RCC says that they came from the true root, but does that make it so? They said that Peter was the first pope and the first priest. Does that make it so? The RCC has been notorious for keeping the Bible from the people - that's what caused the dark ages. (Message edited by Asurprise on January 22, 2012) | ||
| Starlabs Registered user Username: Starlabs Post Number: 32 Registered: 5-2011 |
I still go back to why? I know you said you wanted to prove how much worse off the SDA church is than RCC but still why? What's the undeying reason for this? Do you think by telling SDA's that they are worse than RCC that you will be bringing them to Christ? If on our best day our righteousness is as filthy rags then it's really not even about comparing which churche's sin is greatest. We all deserve hell. SDA's, RCC's, Prostenants, all people. It's only by God's grace that any of us are saved! | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2355 Registered: 7-2007 |
"For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock." Acts 20:29 It doesn't matter what color the wolf is, the result to the sheep is the same. Here's a video of a captured wolf that killed a bunch of sheep. It shows the dead sheep too, so it's pretty graphic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzIFFAaY7wE | ||
| Doc Registered user Username: Doc Post Number: 695 Registered: 2-2003  |
Just a few thoughts on this fascinating subject. I have never been either SDA or RC, I was brought up Evangelical, Baptist, Methodist, so I can hardly be the expert. Roman Catholicism seems cultic to me, but... I have heard the thought expressed on this site, with some frustration I might add, that those "Evangelicals" who argue that SDA is also "Evangelical", why do they not ask former Adventists who are now Christians, whether they think SDA is Evangelical or not? In the same vein, why do we not ask former Roman Catholics who are now Evangelical, whether they think their former church is able to provide salvation, or not? I am personnally acquainted with former RCs, from Germany and Hungary, who think that the RC church is not the real thing. I also live in a predominantly Roman Catholic country, so I can see the damage that this religion has done in people's lives. I have also listened to material from former RCs, like Richard Bennett, a former Roman Catholic priest: http://www.bereanbeacon.org/ who is pretty convinced that the RC church is the antichrist. Far more extreme than I would be, but on the other hand, he knows the situation from the inside and I do not. Just a few thoughts.., Adrian | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1519 Registered: 7-2004  |
Starlabs, I explained why. Perhaps you should reviewbthe content of my posts rather than have me repeat myself. Adrian, Excellent points, thanks for your comments. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1522 Registered: 7-2004 |
Starlabs, You are so right about the importance of discernment. There are dangerous traps outside of SDAism as well. I am not trying to minimize the errors of RCCism in the least. As Asurprise points out, the need for us to contribute our works to achieve salvation is a false Gospel. If we are rely on our works, even a little bit, we are saying that Christ's death wasn't really needed. We are also doomed to hopelessness, since no of our works warrant eternal life. I should be more patient in explaining, my purpose is to be thought provoking. The errors of SDAism are really, really serious. And I believe that the magnitude of just how serious these errors are is sometimes glossed over. I would hope that drawing out the comparisons provides a vehicle to discuss just how serious it is to deny the Trinity and to re-write Scripture. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7637 Registered: 9-2006 |
I want to say something here and it may be interpreted by some as flip flopping. I am not flip flopping, I still think it is despicable to contentiously snipe at any guest on this forum, whether Catholic, Adventist, evangelical or what, all the while, with the purpose of sniping in mind. I was talking to a former Adventist recently who went the way of Catholism and as I was talking about the heresies that lay in Catholism and in the course of the conversation she mentioned, knowing I am a Pentecostal, that Catholics also speak in tongues. I think by mentioning this, she thought perhaps that would tie me more in favor of Catholism. While there has been a move among Catholics of the Holy Spirit, these same Catholics recognize one thing, the supremacy of Scripture as the only source for Christian faith and practice, and it has caused an exodus from the Catholic Church. While the Catholic Church remains the same. The Church does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.” (Richard Bennett.) I am saying this because of the question asked, Is the Catholic church a move in the right direction from Adventism? Even the question is alarming to me. Contrary to what the lady thinks about the fact that there are Catholics that speak in tongues, the Catholic position has not changed one bit, but rather than change coming to the Catholic church, they are using that to make inroads into Evangelicalism for the purpose of converting them (and the whole world) to the Catholic dogma. Some of the word of faith people have been sucked into putting a stamp of approval of sorts on the RCC. That’s what happens when we drift from scripture. I have known Former Catholics and they will tell you how far off scripture Catholism is. I have known quite a few Catholics in my time and they are hard to reach because they depend on what man says instead of depending on what the Bible says. So once the former Adventist goes that way, I am just afraid it might be as long a way out of that as it was Adventism. If you would like to read a short article by an ex-catholic priest on what I am taking about, you can find the article by googling The Papacy’s Exploitation of Pentecostalism. The article is easy to find. River | ||
| Starlabs Registered user Username: Starlabs Post Number: 33 Registered: 5-2011 |
I have to apologize Ric_b. I realize you are just asking a hypothetical question. A question to make people really think about the inheritant heresies unique to each cult. I guess right now in my Christian growth I'm just so excited about the gospel that really that's all I want to talk about. I'll exit this thread as I don't really have anything intelligent to contribute as I'm just not familiar with the RCC. Again Ric_b my apologies as I reread my posts it didn't come off as constructive. | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 7638 Registered: 9-2006 |
Starlabs, there are people on the forum who are in all the stages of growth, I am delighted that you are in that stage. We are all at some stage in Christian growth and your contribution is just as important as any body else's is. You don't need to feel any way but appreciated. | ||
| Starlabs Registered user Username: Starlabs Post Number: 34 Registered: 5-2011 |
Thanks River, that means a lot! This forum and all of you have helped me tremendously through finding my way out. So River, I'd like to thank you and everyone in this forum! | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3857 Registered: 10-2004  |
River, I think you're misunderstanding what was meant by "a step in the right direction from SDAism." Rick can clarify for us, but I don't think he meant that it was a good thing for an Adventist to leave Adventism and go into Catholicism, or that he would encourage anyone to do that. Rather, it's simply a fact that the Roman Catholic Church has held onto some core doctrines of Christian orthodoxy (especially with regard to Christology and Theology proper) which Adventism rejected when they discarded the entire 1,800-year history of Christianity, along with its creeds and councils and confessions, and attempted to "start over" with their brand of "Restorationism." This is why Colleen calls it a new, separate tree (cult). Jeremy | ||
| Asurprise Registered user Username: Asurprise Post Number: 2356 Registered: 7-2007 |
River; I wasn't "sniping" at anybody is case you had me in mind. I love Roman Catholics, Mormons, Seventh-day Adventists, J.Witnesses, Muslims, etc. That's why I'm continually bringing up WHY those cults are false. As you know, I'm always bring up why SDAism is false, knowing that Adventists are probably lurking, because I love them and want them to be saved. Here's an article from Gotquestions.org that shows that the Roman Catholic church is not from the same root as Christianity... quote: www.GotQuestions.org Question: "What is the origin of the Catholic Church?" Answer: The Roman Catholic Church contends that its origin is the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ in approximately A.D. 30. The Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the church that Jesus Christ died for, the church that was established and built by the apostles. Is that the true origin of the Catholic Church? On the contrary. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture. So, if the origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Jesus and His apostles, as recorded in the New Testament, what is the true origin of the Catholic Church? For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine “legalized” Christianity with the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Later, in A.D. 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity. Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith, but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine promoted was a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism. Constantine found that with the Roman Empire being so vast, expansive, and diverse, not everyone would agree to forsake his or her religious beliefs to embrace Christianity. So, Constantine allowed, and even promoted, the “Christianization” of pagan beliefs. Completely pagan and utterly unbiblical beliefs were given new “Christian” identities. Some clear examples of this are as follows: (1) The Cult of Isis, an Egyptian mother-goddess religion, was absorbed into Christianity by replacing Isis with Mary. Many of the titles that were used for Isis, such as “Queen of Heaven,” “Mother of God,” and theotokos (“God-bearer”) were attached to Mary. Mary was given an exalted role in the Christian faith, far beyond what the Bible ascribes to her, in order to attract Isis worshippers to a faith they would not otherwise embrace. Many temples to Isis were, in fact, converted into temples dedicated to Mary. The first clear hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship. (2) Mithraism was a religion in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 5th centuries A.D. It was very popular among the Romans, especially among Roman soldiers, and was possibly the religion of several Roman emperors. While Mithraism was never given “official” status in the Roman Empire, it was the de facto official religion until Constantine and succeeding Roman emperors replaced Mithraism with Christianity. One of the key features of Mithraism was a sacrificial meal, which involved eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a bull. Mithras, the god of Mithraism, was “present” in the flesh and blood of the bull, and when consumed, granted salvation to those who partook of the sacrificial meal (this is known as theophagy, the eating of one’s god). Mithraism also had seven “sacraments,” making the similarities between Mithraism and Roman Catholicism too many to ignore. Constantine and his successors found an easy substitute for the sacrificial meal of Mithraism in the concept of the Lord’s Supper/Christian communion. Sadly, some early Christians had already begun to attach mysticism to the Lord’s Supper, rejecting the biblical concept of a simple and worshipful remembrance of Christ’s death and shed blood. The Romanization of the Lord’s Supper made the transition to a sacrificial consumption of Jesus Christ, now known as the Catholic Mass/Eucharist, complete. (3) Most Roman emperors (and citizens) were henotheists. A henotheist is one who believes in the existence of many gods, but focuses primarily on one particular god or considers one particular god supreme over the other gods. For example, the Roman god Jupiter was supreme over the Roman pantheon of gods. Roman sailors were often worshippers of Neptune, the god of the oceans. When the Catholic Church absorbed Roman paganism, it simply replaced the pantheon of gods with the saints. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these, and many other categories. Just as many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, so the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for the cities. (4) The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. With the city of Rome being the center of government for the Roman Empire, and with the Roman emperors living in Rome, the city of Rome rose to prominence in all facets of life. Constantine and his successors gave their support to the bishop of Rome as the supreme ruler of the church. Of course, it is best for the unity of the Roman Empire that the government and state religion be centered in the same location. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. When the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors – Pontificus Maximus. Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the true origin of the Catholic Church. Of course the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices. The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology. The Catholic Church excuses and denies its pagan origin beneath the mask of “church tradition.” Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it. Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions, and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, yes, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the people of the Roman Empire. One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the “Roman world” for centuries. However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word. Second Timothy 4:3-4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” © Copyright 2002-2012 Got Questions Ministries. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1523 Registered: 7-2004 |
Asurprise, Sometimes the websites that we rely upon for our information are biased. The web has been invaluable in opening up information to people, but it has also been a source of much bias. This is where good old fashioned books are so valuable. Sure the books can have biases as well, but the nature of publishing has provided a certain barrier to spreading any old idea as fact. As someone who has spent some time studying early church history, the story behind the rise in power of the Bishop of Rome is far more complex and circuitous than what is presented by this web source you quote at length. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1524 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, You have hit the nail on the head. The basic message of salvation is, at least from my perspective, unchanged between SDAism and Catholicism. Both insist that our efforts have a role to play. Both promote the idea that an unconfessed sin cannot be forgiven. In regards to the Gospel, SDAism and Catholicism might as well be interchangeable. Although I think RCs have a little greater personal hope of eventual salvation than an SDA does (I am talking about their perceptions in this regard). | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3858 Registered: 10-2004 |
Asurprise, That article, while not completely accurate itself, actually affirms what we are saying--that the RCC has its origin in the Apostolic root but gradually, as the article puts it, "apostatiz[ed] from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God's Word." That is different than a group which breaks off and starts a completely new cult (such as LDS or SDA). There is no real "origin" of the Roman Catholic Church, unless you go with the East-West Schism of 1054. What is the RCC today is the result of a gradual (centuries long in fact) modification of teachings and practices, including the addition of unBiblical teachings and the apostasy into a false gospel. But to claim that the Church was not Christian by 325 AD would mean that you would have no reason to accept the Nicene Creed which came out of the Council of Nicaea in 325, including the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, out of 318 attendees at the Council of Nicaea, only 5 were even from the Western Church! Also, that article is stretching the bounds of credulity, when it comes to making some of those connections to paganism. For example, it is simply a matter of Christian orthodoxy that "titles...such as...'Mother of God,' and theotokos ('God-bearer') were attached to Mary." This was not for some purpose of adapting paganism, but for the express purpose of countering the heresy of Nestorius (who separated Jesus' divine and human natures into two different persons). Nestorius would only affirm that Mary was Christotokos ("Christ-bearer"), so the Council of Ephesus (rightly) anathematized anyone who refused to proclaim that Mary was Theotokos ("God-bearer"). This is a fact of history. It was completely a matter of orthodox Christology, and not a matter of "Mariology" at all. A person cannot be a Christian without believing that Mary was the God-bearer! Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on January 22, 2012) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1527 Registered: 7-2004 |
If I may offer my over-simplification of church history gleaned from my readings on the subject. In the early church there were Bishops in many cities, including Rome. The Bishops in the larger cities gradually had more political pull, but this political pull was often confined to the immediate region. By political I am talking church politics rather than secular politics. The extent of a Bishop's influence was also due, in large part, to the personality of that Bishop. Alliances formed and disbanded. The Bishops, like men throughout history varied. Some were good, God-following men, some were a mix of good and bad, and others appear to have followed something other than God. The church had a number of different, and even conflicting, doctrinal teachings (not all that different than what you see in the many denominations today). Constantine tired to get the various Bishops to agree on what the one correct teaching of the church really was. And this began the mixing of state and religion. But even this did not establish the predominance of the Bishop of Rome. Fast forward a couple centuries to the Dark Ages. Rome had certainly consolidated a great deal of power by this time. But even then it is unrealistic to think of "A" unified Roman Catholic doctrine. There remained a great number of competing and even contradicting doctrines within the RC church. In some ways, significant portions of RC theology were cemented as a result of the reformers. It was in the RC response to the reformers that many of the lines of what is or is not RC theology were laid down. In some ways you could think of the different orders within the RC church as almost separate denominations. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1529 Registered: 7-2004 |
Starlabs, I didn't see a single word you wrote to me that would warrant an apology. Noone wants to dampen your zeal for the Gospel. I fear, sometimes, that my comments might be taken as challenging a friend's zeal. My goal, in what may sound like challenging posts, is to encourage brothers and sisters to apply that zeal with more precision, so that they can be even more effective. | ||
| Katarain Registered user Username: Katarain Post Number: 37 Registered: 1-2012 |
What is cessationism? |
