THE GREAT CONTROVERSY in Baltimore, Maryland

bbbbbbb said:

the question comes to mind as to why biblical illiteracy is so widespread.

Click to expand...

As written, God sent (and at present exists?) a famine not of Scripture nor of bread or food, but a famine of the hearing of the Word of Yahweh. In Scripture His Purpose might be seen if He Permits.

The books sent to every address might have better results than trying to get people to read Scripture. God Knows. A lot of people don't believe Scripture you know ? They believe traditions of men, i.e. what they have been told Scripture says.

jas3 said:

As I said, I've read chapters 2 and 3. I'm not seeing what the extra text you included adds to clarify the timeline. Yes, there's a reference to claimed pagan influence before the "establishment of the papacy," although it's not clear whether this is referring to the 6th century, when she says the pope was proclaimed to be the head of the church (and I'm puzzled at what her rationale for that could be other than backdating 1260 years from her own time) or some earlier time. But then the section that includes a mention of the Real Presence comes after one on indulgences, which are said to involve enlistment in the "pontiff's wars," which could only be a reference to the Crusades, the first of which took place in the 11th century. Is there an implicit reversal in time? Is the reference to the "pontiff's wars" only an example of how indulgences were later used? Neither would seem to be the natural reading of the text.

Click to expand...

Whether you can see and or accept it or not, what is said in several paragraphs between the two statements under examination, does have direct bearing upon the overall context of that being written. Speaking of the 11th century in one paragraph, and then the 13th century seven paragraphs later, doesn't equal the presentation of history in historical order between these two centuries. Unless the context of those in-between paragraphs suggests or simply states this to be so. To the contrary, after speaking of the eleventh century, the context is taken back to a time before the papacy itself in addressing its development throughout the centuries. Clearly establishing that the paragraphs under examination were not depicting historical developments just from the 11th to the 13th century. You are saying this is what is being stated, not the context of that being examined, itself.

The natural reading of the text is that after speaking of the 11th century, the text goes back to a time before the existence of the papacy. Breaking any link or suggestion that what is being discussed is intended to be taken as though it was just in relation to events which took place between the 11th and 13th century. There is no definite order of events throughout time, just an address concerning slow developments over the centuries, while mentioning certain events during certain centuries. You may of course make it out to be whatever you wish, even if it is not there.

jas3 said:

The people I interact with outside of this forum generally don't give much thought to SDA arguments one way or the other, other than where they overlap with other Protestant arguments such as the silly idea of anonymous secret Protestants living in parallel with the mainstream church for centuries and leaving no historical evidence prior to the Waldensians, and then also trying to claim that these hypothetical people would have been Nicene Christians even though they would have to reject the church that wrote the Nicene Creed.

Click to expand...

The Waldensians themselves claim to go back to the time of the apostles I do believe. No one is claiming there were Protestants before Luther. Or no one is doing so correctly in any case. The term was applied to predominantly Roman Catholics who protested the abuses of their church, were excommunicated by the church for doing so, and then labeled as Protestants. The abuses they protested included the abuse of non Catholic Christians of the time and prior, who maintained biblical teachings or teachings contrary to the mandated beliefs of Roman Catholicism. Many of whom existed throughout all of the centuries since the apostles. As evidenced in many an historical account, and the persecutions themselves which decisively reveal that there were many who did not agree with and or comply with Roman Catholic teaching. This is not to mention the many Christians killed during the Imperial establishment of Roman Catholicism, the many dissenting Christian sects of the day suffering persecution when they would not conform their faiths.

The second chapter of the book at the following link gives an excellent definition and or account of what it is or means to be a Protestant.

bbbbbbb said:

Thank you again for your pertinent reply. Am I correct in understanding that the primary purpose for inundating Baltimore and Philadelphia with this particular book was membership recruitment for the SDA?

Click to expand...

The argument in itself is suspect. It begs the question, if the Bible alone is sufficient for a rule of faith, of what use is the SDA?
Are they not a group of men and women apart from scripture and therefore subject to error?

If we are to believe the Bible and the SDA, does that not make the claim of scripture only a slogan rather than a belief?

boughtwithaprice said:

The argument in itself is suspect. It begs the question, if the Bible alone is sufficient for a rule of faith, of what use is the SDA?
Are they not a group of men and women apart from scripture and therefore subject to error?

If we are to believe the Bible and the SDA, does that not make the claim of scripture only a slogan rather than a belief?

Click to expand...

How does one determine error?

Scriptural discernment through the Holy Spirit.


Through prayerful study of scripture, one can know the truth.

The church.



Jesus addressed issues in the seven churches in Revelation 1:1-3. He said that any church that remained unrepentant would have its candlestick removed.


What assurances do I have that my denomination is not in error? I prayerfully study scripture and rely on the Holy Spirit for discernment. I wouldn't remain in a church if I thought it was in error. In fact, when I came back to Christianity, I vetted every point, and I continue to do so as a member of the church.

In closing, let's revisit the questions presented.


This would apply to the whole of Protestantism, not just SDA.