Adventism refuted by Orthodoxy

[Paul Yohannan]

To say thst Russia, or the Ottoman Empire were more powerful than the Catholic church indicates the need for a remedial study of history.

Indeed, but I never said that.

 

[BobRyan]

I believe the point is not to debate your post, overcomer, but to provide an example of how SDA arguments assume that Rome is defining this or that for all Christianity, so that defeating or seeming to defeat Rome's argument therefore defeats whatever principle or concept is under discussion. The point of the OP, if I understand him correctly, is that because SDAs or at least SDA doctrine doesn't seem to understand or take into account that Rome does not decide matters for the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox (and never has), the arguments created by SDAs as in your post are built on faulty premises that do not actually address the theology of the early Christian Church in toto (meaning, the Greek and non-Greek churches of the Eastern Roman empire, and beyond in places like Ethiopia, India, and Persia), but only Rome in particular.

Likely that is his case. But in general Baptists also don't go running to the Pope to ask him what they should believe. However the Protestant Reformation "did take place" so also the schisms of Catholicism into varied/myriad groups. The SDA argument comes from Acts 20 and 2Thess 1 about a great apostasy predicted by the NT writers -- resulting in the "dark ages".

As concerns that particular post, for instance, the Immaculate Conception is not believed by Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox; it is strictly a Roman Catholic idea, built on Roman Catholic presuppositions and ideas of original sin inherited from Augustine of Hippo

Indeed it would be hard to find any denomination at all - that believes in the "Immaculate Conception". And of course - it is not in the Bible.

So arguing against the immaculate conception does not argue against the sinless human nature of Jesus Christ, because that's not how Jesus "got" His sinless human nature

Correct - the Bible does not say that Mary was sinless or that it takes a sinless mother to have a sinless baby - if that were true then Mary, her mother, her grand mother, every mother to Eve ... would need an unbroken line of sinless mothers to have the incarnation of Christ.

Once you admit you don't need such a line then Mary is as good a "starting point" as any for a sinful-nature fully human mother to have a sinless baby.

The point is that SDA apologetics are so narrowly focused against Rome in particular as to ignore the historical and present reality of other churches outside of her

Why not put that proposal to the test?

The book "The Great Controversy" covers the Christian age from the destruction of Jerusalem -- to the Dark Ages, and the Protestant Reformation, the Great Awakening, the 2nd coming, the Millennium, the New Heavens and New Earth.

Free - online.

Online Books: The Great Controversy

Now if what you are saying is true - then the only group that book knows about - is the Roman Catholic church.

Why not test that out? Take a look.

If on the other hand - your argument is that all the Protestant Churches were actually protesting the Eastern Orthodox church and not the Roman Catholic church -- well here is your place to make your alternate history known to us.

The Protestants were not protesting most of what SDAs protest.

The "protesting Catholics" -- such as Wycliffe, Jerome, Huss, Luther, Calvin were ... "Catholics" demanding that their own church get back to Bible basics - NT church basics, ... testing all doctrine an tradition against the Bible. SDAs do insist on sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition. But we do not do it from "within" the Catholic church as the early "protesting Catholics" were doing it.

The "protesting Catholics" were choosing the Bible over veneration of saints, purgatory, the immaculate conception, the sale indulgences, the claims to authority that the Pope was making at the time.

SDAs also object to CCC958 "Communion with the DEAD" and Purgatory , the immaculate conception, the sale of indulgencesm, the entire system of indulgences, the claims to authority that the Pope was making etc.

We also oppose the formal earthly priesthood, bowing down before images in church and promising to serve and venerate those they represent and many other things of that sort.

We prefer the sola scriptura model of Mark 7:61-3 and Acts 17:11

And of course there is the American form of the Protest including Roger Williams' focus on the separation of church and state in the form of granting religious liberty. Freedom to worship God according to the dictates of the conscience.

The SDA objection is not focused primarily on the corruption of Rome, but rather on various doctrines shared by most Protestants.

Certainly it is true that the SDA set of doctrines do not just focus on opposing errors unique to the RCC

Now a purist, puritanical form of Calvinism, which is basically what Calvin practiced in Geneva, is almost like Adventism with Sunday worship.

SDA doctrine rejects Calvinism

So I cannot criticize Calvinism for ignoring Orthodoxy, whereas Adventism appears to do so.

consider this

There is a somewhat me-centered view that other religions arise just because they don't like yours -- they simply get up on the wrong side of the bed and say "hey -- today we don't like Methodists... or Baptists, ... or this particular Orthodox church .... or that particular Catholic church".

In that somewhat mythical world you could argue for "someone else not to like" and give some reasons.

But 'in reality" most protestant groups came into being based on "sola scriptura" reasons - where this or that doctrine is found to be Bible based and then it is also found that the Bible specifically identifies key players in history that promote truth - or promote persecution and error.

So it is not at all of the form "hey we woke up today really miffed about such-and-such a denomination".

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
It was in behalf of the Sunday that popery first asserted its arrogant claims (see Appendix); and its first resort to the power of the state was to compel the observance of Sunday as “the Lord’s day.”

2 different events - not one instantaneous irrational leap to the other side of the fence

Why, then, are there Churches of Apostolic origin that use Sunday as the main day of worship, but they have had NO contact with Rome? For instance, the St. Thomas Christians of India

Saint Thomas Christians - New World Encyclopedia

"The Saint Thomas Christians are a group of Christians from the Malabar coast (now Kerala) in South India, who follow Syriac Christianity. [1][2][3][4] The different groups and denominations within the St Thomas Christians together form the Nasrani people. Their tradition goes back to the beginnings of first century Christian thought, and the seven churches that are believed to have been established by Saint Thomas the Apostle. The Nasrani preserved the original rituals of the early Jewish Christians, such as covering their heads while in worship and holding their ritual service on Saturdays in the tradition of the Jewish Sabbath. They also believed that the Romans killed Jesus"

This is inaccurate. The Nasrani were a part of the Church of the East, which always worshipped on Sunday.

The question is specific to the St. Thomas Chrisians of India - and "The Nasrani preserved the original rituals of the early Jewish Christians, such as covering their heads while in worship and holding their ritual service on Saturdays in the tradition of the Jewish Sabbath." -- you are avoiding those specific details. At this point i can quote New World Encyclopedia for those very specific details, if I simply quote "Paul Yohannan" making statements about 'the Church of the East" ---- instead of addressing the details just listed -- such tactics will not be viewed as "compelling" for any objective unbiased reader.

Proof, please, from a reliable, NON-SDA source.

That entire post was from non-SDA sources - what is your "other request"??

Because we are still waiting for you to address the details listed, the documents referenced - the history noted there.

Hint: I consider Orthodox sources to be "your group" not SDA. You aread non-SDA Orthodox sources and they reference Orthodox documents - not SDA ones, but then you respond "not those Orthodox documents" -- as if Orthodox documents are SDA??

 

[BobRyan]

Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians were the same Church until 1054.

The Orthodox in Russia DID have the authority of the State, as Orthodoxy was the STATE religion. AS it was in Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and other countries. That is over half of Europe and most of Asia. Therefore, your premise is false.

Which means it is pretty hard to argue that the Orthodox churches had no influence from or contact with the Roman Catholics. Still the OP and title is missing a key detail which is that the SDA church did not go looking for someone to "dislike" or some denomination to "dislike" -- it is all about - "What does the Bible say" and what does history show to match it?

it would be like saying to Noah "Why is it you don't like water... I can come up with some good reasons for you to not like rocks, or fire, or ants."

 

[BobRyan]

First of all, when we pray for the dead, we are praying TO God for the well-being of our friend's soul in heaven.

So then in your case it is not CCC958 "Communion WITH the DEAD" --

Rather it is "Communion with God - about the dead" or "about the well-being of the dead".

I will grant you that those are two very different things.

We pray with saints, asking them to add their prayers to ours in terms of intercession TO God.

And "By saints" you mean "The DEAD in Christ" of 1Thess 4? "Askin them" is back to praying TO them

If so... then you are back to CCC958 "Communion WITH the DEAD"

Most Pre-Reformation Christians (Orthodox, Catholic, Syrian, and so on) DO believe that once a person dies, his spirit departs from the body, and he then follows the path that he began here on earth. If he has been a believing Christian, then his path will continue to heaven. If not, it will continue to hell.

And the resurrection from the dead that the Bible talks about? How does that fit in to your view?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

2 different events - not one instantaneous irrational leap to the other side of the fence



Saint Thomas Christians - New World Encyclopedia

"The Saint Thomas Christians are a group of Christians from the Malabar coast (now Kerala) in South India, who follow Syriac Christianity. [1][2][3][4] The different groups and denominations within the St Thomas Christians together form the Nasrani people. Their tradition goes back to the beginnings of first century Christian thought, and the seven churches that are believed to have been established by Saint Thomas the Apostle. The Nasrani preserved the original rituals of the early Jewish Christians, such as covering their heads while in worship and holding their ritual service on Saturdays in the tradition of the Jewish Sabbath. They also believed that the Romans killed Jesus"



The question is specific to the St. Thomas Chrisians of India - and "The Nasrani preserved the original rituals of the early Jewish Christians, such as covering their heads while in worship and holding their ritual service on Saturdays in the tradition of the Jewish Sabbath." -- you are avoiding those specific details. At this point i can quote New World Encyclopedia for those very specific details, if I simply quote "Paul Yohannan" making statements about 'the Church of the East" ---- instead of addressing the details just listed -- such tactics will not be viewed as "compelling" for any objective unbiased reader.




That entire post was from non-SDA sources - what is your "other request"??

Because we are still waiting for you to address the details listed, the documents referenced - the history noted there.

Hint: I consider Orthodox sources to be "your group" not SDA. You aread non-SDA Orthodox sources and they reference Orthodox documents - not SDA ones, but then you respond "not those Orthodox documents" -- as if Orthodox documents are SDA??

Still you continue to quote a source which is inaccurate.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
It was in behalf of the Sunday that popery first asserted its arrogant claims (see Appendix); and its first resort to the power of the state was to compel the observance of Sunday as “the Lord’s day.”

2 different events - not one instantaneous irrational leap to the other side of the fence

Why, then, are there Churches of Apostolic origin that use Sunday as the main day of worship, but they have had NO contact with Rome? For instance, the St. Thomas Christians of India

Saint Thomas Christians - New World Encyclopedia

"The Saint Thomas Christians are a group of Christians from the Malabar coast (now Kerala) in South India, who follow Syriac Christianity. [1][2][3][4] The different groups and denominations within the St Thomas Christians together form the Nasrani people. Their tradition goes back to the beginnings of first century Christian thought, and the seven churches that are believed to have been established by Saint Thomas the Apostle. The Nasrani preserved the original rituals of the early Jewish Christians, such as covering their heads while in worship and holding their ritual service on Saturdays in the tradition of the Jewish Sabbath. They also believed that the Romans killed Jesus"

This is inaccurate. The Nasrani were a part of the Church of the East, which always worshipped on Sunday.

The question is specific to the St. Thomas Chrisians of India - and "The Nasrani preserved the original rituals of the early Jewish Christians, such as covering their heads while in worship and holding their ritual service on Saturdays in the tradition of the Jewish Sabbath." -- you are avoiding those specific details. At this point i can quote New World Encyclopedia for those very specific details, if I simply quote "Paul Yohannan" making statements about 'the Church of the East" ---- instead of addressing the details just listed -- such tactics will not be viewed as "compelling" for any objective unbiased reader.

Proof, please, from a reliable, NON-SDA source.

That entire post was from non-SDA sources - what is your "other request"??

Because we are still waiting for you to address the details listed, the documents referenced - the history noted there.

Hint: I consider Orthodox sources to be "your group" not SDA. You aread non-SDA Orthodox sources and they reference Orthodox documents - not SDA ones, but then you respond "not those Orthodox documents" -- as if Orthodox documents are SDA??

Still you continue to quote a source which is inaccurate.

Wishful thinking in your objection to that Orthodox source. Why not prove something to support your accusation about people in your own Orthodox group. I am not quoting SDA documents or sources.

Your calling this-or-that group of Orthodox Christians "heretics" means nothing outside of the dark ages. You need actual facts.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Hint: I consider Orthodox sources to be "your group" not SDA. You aread non-SDA Orthodox sources and they reference Orthodox documents - not SDA ones, but then you respond "not those Orthodox documents" -- as if Orthodox documents are SDA??

Please note: I am not Orthodox. I am a Melkite Catholic.

 

[Monk Brendan]

And the resurrection from the dead that the Bible talks about? How does that fit in to your view?

When Jesus will come in His glory, ALL of the bodies of the dead will be raised, and be re-united with their souls. (re: 1Cor 15:50-57 KJV)

All, therefore, will be raised from the dead, and all will be judged--the evil to the lake of fire, the good to heaven.

 

[Monk Brendan]

The "protesting Catholics" -- such as Wycliffe, Jerome, Huss, Luther, Calvin

The "Protestants" were protesting the Augsburg Confession, and NOT the Catholics or Orthodox. Thus the premise to this argument is untrue, therefore, the conclusion is also untrue

 

[Monk Brendan]

If on the other hand - your argument is that all the Protestant Churches were actually protesting the Eastern Orthodox church and not the Roman Catholic church -- well here is your place to make your alternate history known to us.

Most of the Protestants did not know, much less understand, Orthodoxy. Most of the texts at that time were written in Church Slavonic

Church Slavonic is the conservative Slavic liturgical language used by the Orthodox Church in Bulgaria, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Russia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Macedonia and Ukraine. The language also occasionally appears in the services of the Orthodox Church in America. It was also used by the Orthodox Churches in Romanian lands until the late 17th and early 18th centuries, as well as by Roman Catholic Croatians in the early Middle Ages. (From Wikipedia)

Translations into Latin, German, and/or English were not attempted at all until the late 19th to early 20th centuries. As a result, they were closed books to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and their contemporaries.

 

[BobRyan]

Most of the Protestants did not know, much less understand, Orthodoxy. Most of the texts at that time were written in Church Slavonic

Church Slavonic is the conservative Slavic liturgical language used by the Orthodox Church in Bulgaria, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Russia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Macedonia and Ukraine. The language also occasionally appears in the services of the Orthodox Church in America. It was also used by the Orthodox Churches in Romanian lands until the late 17th and early 18th centuries, as well as by Roman Catholic Croatians in the early Middle Ages. (From Wikipedia)

Translations into Latin, German, and/or English were not attempted at all until the late 19th to early 20th centuries. As a result, they were closed books to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and their contemporaries.

So then - as Roman Catholics those "protestors" could not possibly have been protesting against those writings that they were not even reading.

Apparently we agree on that point.

 

[BobRyan]

The "Protestants" were protesting the Augsburg Confession, and NOT the Catholics or Orthodox. Thus the premise to this argument is untrue, therefore, the conclusion is also untrue

That is fake history and we both know it.

"The Augsburg Confession, also known as the "Augustana" from its Latin name, Confessio Augustana, is the primary confession of faith of the Lutheran Church"

Luther was not protesting the Augsburg Confession.

Calvin, Luther, and others were reading Wycliffe, Huss and Jerome's work - and agreeing with them. And all of these writings read by Calvin and Luther were before Augsburg.

As you know - "details matter"

 

[BobRyan]

When Jesus will come in His glory, ALL of the bodies of the dead will be raised, and be re-united with their souls. (re: 1Cor 15:50-57 KJV)

All, therefore, will be raised from the dead, and all will be judged--the evil to the lake of fire, the good to heaven.

So then in your view they get their punishment or reward after they are resurrected -- and this is when they are judged?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
It was in behalf of the Sunday that popery first asserted its arrogant claims (see Appendix); and its first resort to the power of the state was to compel the observance of Sunday as “the Lord’s day.”

2 different events - not one instantaneous irrational leap to the other side of the fence

Why, then, are there Churches of Apostolic origin that use Sunday as the main day of worship, but they have had NO contact with Rome? For instance, the St. Thomas Christians of India

Saint Thomas Christians - New World Encyclopedia

"The Saint Thomas Christians are a group of Christians from the Malabar coast (now Kerala) in South India, who follow Syriac Christianity. [1][2][3][4] The different groups and denominations within the St Thomas Christians together form the Nasrani people. Their tradition goes back to the beginnings of first century Christian thought, and the seven churches that are believed to have been established by Saint Thomas the Apostle. The Nasrani preserved the original rituals of the early Jewish Christians, such as covering their heads while in worship and holding their ritual service on Saturdays in the tradition of the Jewish Sabbath. They also believed that the Romans killed Jesus"

This is inaccurate. The Nasrani were a part of the Church of the East, which always worshipped on Sunday.

The question is specific to the St. Thomas Chrisians of India - and "The Nasrani preserved the original rituals of the early Jewish Christians, such as covering their heads while in worship and holding their ritual service on Saturdays in the tradition of the Jewish Sabbath." -- you are avoiding those specific details. At this point i can quote New World Encyclopedia for those very specific details, if I simply quote "Paul Yohannan" making statements about 'the Church of the East" ---- instead of addressing the details just listed -- such tactics will not be viewed as "compelling" for any objective unbiased reader.

Proof, please, from a reliable, NON-SDA source.

That entire post was from non-SDA sources - what is your "other request"??

Because we are still waiting for you to address the details listed, the documents referenced - the history noted there.

Hint: I consider Orthodox sources to be "your group" not SDA. You aread non-SDA Orthodox sources and they reference Orthodox documents - not SDA ones, but then you respond "not those Orthodox documents" -- as if Orthodox documents are SDA??

Please note: I am not Orthodox. I am a Melkite Catholic.

I was quoting an Orthodox source about the subject of Orthodox practices when it comes to the Ten Commandments. For Catholics and the subject of the TEN Commandments - I will restrict my quotes to Catholic sources.

As for your initiative in bringing up "St. Thomas Christians of India" I think we have to conclude that they were not doing what you proposed when it comes to the Bible Sabbath -- according to the Encyclopedia. So then not quoting "me" or "you" - but using an outside source.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Back to a key point - not responded to you in the flurry of posts yet --

The Protestants were not protesting most of what SDAs protest.

The "protesting Catholics" -- such as Wycliffe, Jerome, Huss, Luther, Calvin were ... "Catholics" demanding that their own church get back to Bible basics - NT church basics, ... testing all doctrine an tradition against the Bible. SDAs do insist on sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition. But we do not do it from "within" the Catholic church as the early "protesting Catholics" were doing it.

The "protesting Catholics" were choosing the Bible over veneration of saints, purgatory, the immaculate conception, the sale indulgences, the claims to authority that the Pope was making at the time.

SDAs also object to CCC958 "Communion with the DEAD" and Purgatory , the immaculate conception, the sale of indulgencesm, the entire system of indulgences, the claims to authority that the Pope was making etc.

We also oppose the formal earthly priesthood, bowing down before images in church and promising to serve and venerate those they represent and many other things of that sort.

We prefer the sola scriptura model of Mark 7:61-3 and Acts 17:11

And of course there is the American form of the Protest including Roger Williams' focus on the separation of church and state in the form of granting religious liberty. Freedom to worship God according to the dictates of the conscience.

The SDA objection is not focused primarily on the corruption of Rome, but rather on various doctrines shared by most Protestants.

Certainly it is true that the SDA set of doctrines do not just focus on opposing errors unique to the RCC They include correction of errors specific to the RCC alone - but also the correction of errors shared by some of her daughter churches.

Now a purist, puritanical form of Calvinism, which is basically what Calvin practiced in Geneva, is almost like Adventism with Sunday worship.

SDA doctrine rejects Calvinism

So I cannot criticize Calvinism for ignoring Orthodoxy, whereas Adventism appears to do so.

consider this

There is a somewhat me-centered view that other religions arise just because they don't like yours -- they simply get up on the wrong side of the bed and say "hey -- today we don't like Methodists... or Baptists, ... or this particular Orthodox church .... or that particular Catholic church".

In that somewhat mythical world you could argue for "someone else not to like" and give some reasons.

But 'in reality" most protestant groups came into being based on "sola scriptura" reasons - where this or that doctrine is found to be Bible based and then it is also found that the Bible specifically identifies key players in history that promote truth - or promote persecution and error.

So it is not at all of the form "hey we woke up today really miffed about such-and-such a denomination".

 

[BobRyan]

Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians were the same Church until 1054.

The Orthodox in Russia DID have the authority of the State, as Orthodoxy was the STATE religion. AS it was in Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and other countries. That is over half of Europe and most of Asia. Therefore, your premise is false.

Transfer of power in Rome came when Constantine left Rome and went to what became Constantinople -- in the 4th century. If your claim is that in the 2nd century Christians had taken over Greece or Romania or the Ukraine and made Christianity "state religion" there -- let us know.

If you think that instead of just having individual Bishops in their own territory not yet united under the Bishop of Rome or the Bishop in what was then "Byzantium", that they were in fact united under Rome or Byzantium- let us know.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Back to a key point - not responded to you in the flurry of posts yet --






The "protesting Catholics" -- such as Wycliffe, Jerome, Huss, Luther, Calvin were ... "Catholics" demanding that their own church get back to Bible basics - NT church basics, ... testing all doctrine an tradition against the Bible. SDAs do insist on sola scriptura testing of all doctrine and tradition. But we do not do it from "within" the Catholic church as the early "protesting Catholics" were doing it.

The "protesting Catholics" were choosing the Bible over veneration of saints, purgatory, the immaculate conception, the sale indulgences, the claims to authority that the Pope was making at the time.

SDAs also object to CCC958 "Communion with the DEAD" and Purgatory , the immaculate conception, the sale of indulgencesm, the entire system of indulgences, the claims to authority that the Pope was making etc.

We also oppose the formal earthly priesthood, bowing down before images in church and promising to serve and venerate those they represent and many other things of that sort.

We prefer the sola scriptura model of Mark 7:61-3 and Acts 17:11

And of course there is the American form of the Protest including Roger Williams' focus on the separation of church and state in the form of granting religious liberty. Freedom to worship God according to the dictates of the conscience.



Certainly it is true that the SDA set of doctrines do not just focus on opposing errors unique to the RCC They include correction of errors specific to the RCC alone - but also the correction of errors shared by some of her daughter churches.



SDA doctrine rejects Calvinism



consider this

This is a duplicated post; please avoid copy-pastimg your earlier replies into later ones.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Transfer of power in Rome came when Constantine left Rome and went to what became Constantinople -- in the 4th century. If your claim is that in the 2nd century Christians had taken over Greece or Romania or the Ukraine and made Christianity "state religion" there -- let us know.

If you think that instead of just having individual Bishops in their own territory not yet united under the Bishop of Rome or the Bishop in what was then "Byzantium", that they were in fact united under Rome or Byzantium- let us know.

The church in Constantinople was most closely influenced by Antioch; Rome was isolated in the early church by virtue of its use of Latin rather than Greek. Constantinople, ecclesiastically speaking, was bootstrapped from Antioch; the Constantinopolitan liturgy was transplanted from there, the old Anaphora of the Twelve Apostles forming the basis of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Antiochene priest who became the most celebrated bishop of Constantinople.

The bibles of the church in Constantinople were initially sourced from the semi-Arian Eusebius of Caesarea (in Palestine); later, Constantinople came theologically under the influence of the Orthodox Cappadocians (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Gregory of Nyassa), who were in turn allies of St. Athanasius of Alexandria.

 

[BobRyan]

This is a duplicated post; please avoid copy-pastimg your earlier replies into later ones.

The key point is "the not responded to" statement - By ignoring almost every detail in the post - you do not "Sovle it" you make it necessary to - "point to the Bible details again"