| Author | Message | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 702 Registered: 11-2005 |
Colleen, your statement, "The Catholic church sees itself as having spiritual authority over all Christianity" reminds me of a similar Seventh-day Adventist claim. The June 1976 issue of Ministry Magazine, the official publication for Seventh-day Adventist ministers has a rather enlightening article. The title of the article, beginning on page 7, is “What It Means to Be Part of — The Highest Authority That God Has Upon Earth”. (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1976-06/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=7) I guess the Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Evangelicals and others are not part of the Body of Christ? And what about the great reformers and preachers of the past that we studied about in our Bible classes? A triumphalistic church and a triumphalistic leadership will not be quick to repent and to openly acknowledge mistakes. Unqualified admission that mistakes have been made are rare in Adventism. A thoughtful observer could not but see that this Rome-like ecclesiology springs from a soteriology of the same character. Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6731 Registered: 12-2003  |
Gilbert, thanks for sharing that Pierson quote. The pride behind being part of the "remnant", or the one true organized church is amazing. For God's church to be described as anything other than the body of all those who are made alive by the Holy Spirit and hidden with Christ in God (Col 3:3) is unconscionable. And Jeremy, thank you for your concise summary. Well-stated. Colleen | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 243 Registered: 1-2006  |
Jeremy, Your post 2111 above is the clearest summary I have read. I know this was Ric Langer's recent Proclamation topic, but your post is excellent. Thank you for saying it so simply. I have greatly appreciated the many posts you have provided which keep these discussions based on accurate sources--whether we are discussing scripture, Ellen's writings, etc. Thanks for all the work you put into this. It's a ministry in itself. Bob | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 666 Registered: 5-2007 |
Again, what I find telling is the fact that Ellen COMPLETELY ignored the Eastern Orthodox Church. Even in the Great Controversy, when she gave the Adventist "revisionist" account of Church history NOT ONE WORD was mentioned about the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church is, IMHO, the ORIGINAL Church founded by the Apostles. I find it very odd that Ellen NEVER wrote one word about it. | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 714 Registered: 11-2005 |
Reb, It appears that Ellen echoed what those thought leaders around her held in high regard. I think the answer can be found by evaluating the writings of Joseph Bates.
Gilbert Jorgensen | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 668 Registered: 5-2007 |
She did echo stuff from others. Seems like she didn't have an original idea of her own. Go to the Ellen White Research Project and listen to the audio presentation called the "Echoing Prophtess" by Bro. Dirk Anderson. Very eye opening. Getting back to what you posted above, both Bates and Ellen failed to see that the Eastern Orthodox Church was having services on Sunday from the time of the Apostles. St. Polycarp who was one of the Apostolic Fathers and had been a student of John the Revelator, wrote about the practice of worshipping on Sunday around the year 100 A.D. There was no Roman Catholic Church at this time. There was only one Church, the Eastern Orthodox at the time St. Polycarp wrote that. Yet Ellen, who the SDAs consider a prophet was completely silent and/or ignorant about the ORIGINAL Church. Amazing. (Message edited by Reb on September 06, 2007) | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 272 Registered: 1-2004  |
Even if you want to just use generic terms... the church in Jerusalem and Antioch and those "eastern" locations was at one time "orthodox" by everyone's estimation. There is simply disagreement by various groups on how long the Christians in the east stayed orthodox. Eastern Orthodox Christians like myself think they always stayed orthodox. Christianity is an eastern religion...  Jeremiah | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 671 Registered: 5-2007 |
I would agree with you, Jeremiah. I think I have stated before that I have an affinity for the Eastern Orthodox Church and believe it to be the original Church founded by Christ and the Apostles. | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 273 Registered: 1-2004 |
I don't think St Polycarp made reference to Sunday keeping in his extant writings, but St Ignatius did, and the epistle of Barnabas has reference to it. Polycarp did one thing that seems quite Eastern Orthodox; when he went to see Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, he found that Rome was celebrating Easter on Sunday every year. Polycarp and those in his area were using the actual Jewish date of the Passover, regardless of the day of the week. Polycarp couldn't pursuade Anicetus to change and Anicetus couldn't pursuade Polycarp to change, so they agreed to disagree. The difference between East and West in the date of Easter continued till the council of Nicea when the East played catch-up to the West and they all used Sunday as the day to celebrate Easter. Orthodox are typically behind the times. We're still using a Liturgy last revised in around 400 AD, and we still celebrate Easter according to the Julian calender which is now 13 days out, scientifically. We change slowly. But then, sometimes it could be said that the only reason Orthodox change anything is so we can stay the same. I guess it agrees well with the concept that the gospel was given once and doesn't need re-inventing. Jeremiah | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 672 Registered: 5-2007 |
I think you're right, Jeremiah, it was St. Ignatius not St. Polycarp that made that reference to Sunday keeping around the year 100. Right date, wrong Saint. I agree the Gospel was given once and doesn't need re-inventing. | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 707 Registered: 4-2006  |
Dear Leigh Anne, I do believe that there is Christians in the Catholic system and when they learn that the RCC is an apostate "church" who teaches another Gospel and another Jesus, then they will her the voice of God and get out of her: "Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;" Revelation 18:4 The RCC is in direct opposition to the Gospel, just hear what they teach about bible believing Christians: "If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." (Canon 14, Council of Trent). http://www.carm.org/catholic/saved.htm Furthermore I like what the brothers on carm is writing: "If a Roman Catholic believes in the official Roman Catholic teaching on salvation, then he is not a Christian since the official RCC position is contrary to Scripture. Therefore, as a whole, Roman Catholics need to be evangelized. They need to hear the true Gospel." For more information on Ex Catholics who are reaching out to the lost in RCC: http://www.excatholicsforchrist.com/ SDA isn't the only false church there is a much greater one the RCC. In His wonderful grace, Martin | ||
| Laurie Registered user Username: Laurie Post Number: 105 Registered: 6-2007 |
Martin - I agree. I have found it interesting that on this forum nobody has any reservations about calling out the SDA church for what it is, pointing out the countless errors, calling it a cult. I myself have no problem doing any of the above. But I see great reluctance to call out any other false religion (RCC, Islam, etc) for what they are - false religions, countless errors, cult. I realize this is a forum dedicated to formers adventist, but, whenever the topic of other false religions comes up, everyone seems to "pussy foot" around it, have to be "politically correct", "don't want to offend". I don't want to offend either. But.... I have the same deep concern for people in other false religions that I have for people in adventism. Reminder - I am speaking of the catholic church and the SDA church here, not the individuals. I agree with Martin, When people in the RCC hear the voice of God they will get out. Just like I got out of adventism. Laurie | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 6745 Registered: 12-2003 |
I agree, Laurie. False religion is all equally destructive. Anything that obscures the simple gospel of the sufficient and complete work of the Lord Jesus is something from which God calls us. Colleen | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 772 Registered: 6-2006  |
In my post to Martin, I got the impression that he was making a sweeping statement that all Catholics are lost. I simply wanted to point out that Marysroses is a practicing Catholic and I don't believe she is "lost". That's all. I care about her and feel that she is a friend, as I do all of you. Leigh Anne | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 739 Registered: 11-2005 |
Would it be safe to say that the simple dividing line being alluded to here is a person's belief in whether the Gospel is complete in itself, or whether their belief system includes the Gospel plus something else -- be that a church leader or spouse, tradition, or the teachings of someone else, dead or alive? In other words is it simply the Gospel, or is it a gospel that acknowledges and honors an outside influence as well -- a form of spiritual bigamy? Gilbert Jorgensen It has been 162 Years, 10 Months, and 17 Days since October 22, 1844 | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 741 Registered: 11-2005 |
Jeremiah, I was fascinated by your comment Since we have personally visited together and know each other well, I have a question that I would like you to be the recipient of. I have always admired the thoroughness of your study. In your opinion, what actually is the current difference between "western Catholicism" and "eastern Catholicism". I have no ulterior motive in asking that question, except my almost complete ignorance. (It was complete until you enlightened us!) Obviously the Seventh-day Adventist Church has saved all of its venom for its "straw man" of "western Catholicism", but that aside, what would you consider from your vantage point to be the differences in today's theology? Any other observations you have I will be also happy to add to my "knowledge bank". I wish you were still here in Utah, because I know we would have lots of enjoyable discussions, like before! I have lots of new books to show you, and I am sure you feel the same Gilbert | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 276 Registered: 1-2004 |
Hi Gilbert, Maybe sometime we'll get a chance to visit in person again. I do travel a little! My condensed opinion about the differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is that Catholics would claim that the Orthodox are just as correct as the Catholics on most things but that there are different perspectives. Catholicism tries to encompass everybody. The Orthodox would claim that this is not the case, but that Catholicism has added much to the original faith which was handed down, and even changed some things. Here's a link that is written by an Orthodox priest about the differences; http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html One difference that was highlighted by Matthew Gallatin's recent series on "imputed righteousness" is that Orthodoxy views many things as "actions" which Catholicism views as "things". For instance imputed righteousness. While Roman Catholics may not necessarily always take this view, most western Christians do; they see "imputed righteousness" as a "thing". Orthodox see an action here; "impute" is verb. "righteousness" is not some "thing" God can take out of a heavenly bank somewhere and put in a person's account; it is rather how God exists. If God imputes righteousness to someone, God considers that they are partaking in His Divine Life. If you're wanting to understand better the differences between East and West, I highly recommend the 13 part podcast on Imputed Righteousness by Matthew Gallatin here; http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/pilgrims/P8/ To really grasp the Eastern view about things requires experiencing it; how can you understand "actions" unless you are doing those actions? It's a life. The definition of "Eternal Life" given by the Apostle John is seen as correct by the Orthodox;
Eternal life is defined as knowing God. And further;
There must be the same type and extent of oneness between Christians with each other and God as displayed in the Trinity. Each Christian must be partaking in God's life. Now the members of the Trinity don't each believe opposite things on theological subjects. Therefore, in Eastern Orthodoxy, doctrinal unity is a real experience. It is in fact rooted in the experience of the one God. Jeremiah | ||
| Jorgfe Registered user Username: Jorgfe Post Number: 748 Registered: 11-2005 |
Jeremiah, that is interesting. Thank you for the links. As usual, you have given me food for thought. I will have to read them. Gilbert | ||
| Reb Registered user Username: Reb Post Number: 674 Registered: 5-2007 |
I read it also, Jeremiah. Again, I find the beliefs of the Orthodox Church to make so much sense. I really believe there is much truth in the Orthodox Church and it is the original. Of course the original is usually always the best IMHO. | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 2132 Registered: 10-2004  |
There are at least three major problems with the Orthodox Church (and these three things happen to be recognized marks of a cult): 1. They claim to be the only true Church. (Sound familiar? ) 2. They have an extra-Biblical source of authority. (Sound familiar? ) 3. They teach a false gospel of salvation by faith plus works. (Sound familiar? ) Jeremy |
