Adventism refuted by Orthodoxy

[Paul Yohannan]

The SDA faith is characterized by an extreme opposition to Roman Catholicism. The Pope is considered to be or to have been the Beast, almost all aspects of doctrine held by Rome are rejected, even including basics such as the date of Pascha, and so on.

Now, all of this is predicated upon a false dichotomy wherein on the one hand you have Adventism and various Protestant churches of the radical reformed / Puritan Calvinist orientation, and on the other you have the Catholic church.

Setting aside the fact that this model ignores Anglicanism, it spectacularly fails to consider the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.

I propose that if one regards the Catholic Church as bad, the Orthodox must be regarded as infinitely worse. Whereas the Roman mass ends with "Ite, missa est," which simply means "Go, it is the dismissal," the Eastern Orthodox liturgy ends with petitions for the intercession of several saints. Whereas the Roman mass implies transubstantiation, a real change of the elements into the body and blood of our Lord is explicitly described in the epiclesis of all of the Eastern and Oriental liturgies, indeed, it is described twice in the Coptic liturgy, and furthermore there are congregational prayers which confess a belief in this change.

Whereas since Vatican II, Catholic bishops typically wear less elaborate vestments, Orthodox bishops have not changed their attire. Every Byzantine, Armenian and Coptic bishop wears a mitre more ornate than the disused tiaras of the Roman pontiff. These mitres can cost tens of thousands of dollars depending on the jewells included. Whereas most Roman Catholic parishes in the Latin Rite, especially those built or refurbished since Vatican II, feature sparse iconography, an intense level of iconography is considered mandatory in the Orthodox church. Whereas since the council of Trent, the Rood Screen dividing the chancel from the nave has been removed as a standard element of Catholic parishes, Orthodox parishes tend to feature an iconostasis or curtain which can conceal the altar entirely from the laity.

Now, what is interesting is that these Orthodox churches are not under the Roman Pope, and never have been. In adhering dogmatically to these principles, the Orthodox are pursuing a faith more extreme in its opposition to Adventist ideals without influence from the alleged "beast."

This, in my opinion, exposes a false dichotomy at the heart of Adventism and the prophecies of Ellen G. White, which suggests that she and other Adventists were either unaware of the Orthodox, or else did not care, owing to a desire to criticize a figure more well known and reviled among Protestants than the Orthodox patriarchs.

All criticisms in this thread can also be applied to Protestant churches that avidly dislike Catholicism while ignoring the Orthodox.

 

[BobRyan]

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".

The SDA faith is characterized by an extreme opposition to Roman Catholicism.

Hint: The Protestant Reformation has been "Characterized" as an "extreme opposition to Roman Catholicism" and they were Roman Catholics who were the "protesting Protestants".

"Characterizing" is merely a tool -- it does not define or create right vs wrong. I think you are on to something though with the title of your thread because Jesus Himself did not survive the scathing criticism of the "Orthodoxy of His day".

Neither did Paul.

Neither did the Protestant Reformers.

You appear to be "careful" not to ask for a Biblical review of Adventists -- we both know you have a much better chance of success if you avoid that.

The Pope is considered to be or to have been the Beast

Oh No wait! Now your just "making stuff up".

That did not take long.

You should have tried to hold out for at least 2 paragraphs -- or at the least - 4 sentences.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Hint: The Protestant Reformation has been "Characterized" as an "extreme opposition to Roman Catholicism" and they were Roman Catholics who were the "protesting Protestants".



No wait! Now your just "making stuff up".

That did not take long.

You should have tried to hold out for at least 2 paragraphs -- or at the least - 4 sentences.

If there is an error in my characterization of the Adventist doctrine regarding the Papacy, provide me with the correct doctrine and I will edit my post. My recollection is that you regard the Pope as having been the Beast during a 1260 year period from 538 through 1798.

 

[BobRyan]

I propose that if one regards the Catholic Church as bad, the Orthodox must be regarded as infinitely worse.
.

Have it your way... though I had not suspected such a thing.

Maybe you can make a good case for it.

 

[BobRyan]

If there is an error in my characterization of the Adventist doctrine regarding the Papacy, provide me with the correct doctrine and I will edit my post. My recollection is that you regard the Pope as having been the Beast during a 1260 year period from 538 through 1798.

Adventists never call the Pope "the Beast".

In Luther's day - the Popes called EACH OTHER "Anti-Christ" and after they did it for a while LUTHER started also calling the Popes "Anti-Christ". (Are you looking for history on this one?)

BEASTS in Daniel 7 represent empires - the first beast in Daniel 7 is Babylon.. the next BEAST is Medo-Persia, the next BEAST is Greece, the next BEAST is pagan Roman Empire.

In Revelation 13 - there are two BEASTS - the second one comes up out of the earth and becomes a world dominating super power - we called that the United States -- in the 1860's.

The first beast in Romans 13 is also a composite entity that dominated throughout a large chunk history - Papal Rome dominated during that time (not the Pope or any given Pope). We call it the "Dark Ages"

 

[Biblicist]

Setting aside the fact that this model ignores Anglicanism, it spectacularly fails to consider the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.

As much as I will leave any SDA specific issues alone, whenever the topic of Pentecostal and Evangelical theology comes up within the West, we have this tendency to compare it with Roman Catholicism where many Western Pentecostal and Evangelical scholars and commentators seem to have blinkers on when it comes to the various Eastern Orthodox denominations. This is undoubtedly due to how the various Eastern Orthodox denominations have such a low presence in the West.

 

[BobRyan]

I propose that if one regards the Catholic Church as bad, the Orthodox must be regarded as infinitely worse. Whereas the Roman mass ends with "Ite, missa est," which simply means "Go, it is the dismissal," the Eastern Orthodox liturgy ends with petitions for the intercession of several saints.

CCC 958 "Communion with the DEAD"

That is a Catholic doctrine in their Catechism - no doubt you have something similar. I am not convinced that one of you is better or worse off than the other in that regard.

Whereas the Roman mass implies transubstantiation, a real change of the elements into the body and blood of our Lord is explicitly described in the epiclesis of all of the Eastern and Oriental liturgies, indeed, it is described twice in the Coptic liturgy, and furthermore there are congregational prayers which confess a belief in this change.

The Catholic church has the concept of "Confecting the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ" in the mass - and that the Priest "does not lose these powers" even if they are excommunicated or defrocked. Perhaps your denomination has the same teaching. I do not know about how the two compare at that point.

Now, what is interesting is that these Orthodox churches are not under the Roman Pope, and never have been.

By the time the schism developed between East and West - a number of doctrines now considered to be Roman Catholic had already come into being - you name a few so apparently we agree.

In adhering dogmatically to these principles, the Orthodox are pursuing a faith more extreme in its opposition to Adventist ideals without influence from the alleged "beast."

Again the assumption you make is that the Catholic church did not start until the schism between east and west. ADventists never argue that the Catholic church had no doctrinal error until your schism.

Which exposes a flaw in your argument in that regard.

Both the orthodox and the Catholics on this board strongly object to the Protestant principle of "Sola Scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition as we see practiced in Mark 7:6-13 and in Acts 17:11. Those events predate both the RCC and the Orthodox Catholic churches.

Error had already come in by the time of the schism.

Therefore your OP does not refute Adventism because it did not accurately define what the differences are -- having a false premise it proceded to refute its own straw man - which is not effective in refuting the real world version. ( A point that is true in general when it comes to the straw man )

I am helping to improve the accuracy of the case you can make so presumably you could frame an accurate target "Adventism" and then without doubt find some tradition that declares this or that doctrine in Adventism to be out of line with the EO or the RCC doctrine/claim/version on the same subject. I am sure we can get there as we already have a list of doctrines where we clearly differ. But on what basis will you argue (for example) that "Communion with the Dead" is the right practice/doctrine and the Adventist claim that it is error - is wrong?? -- tradition?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Paul Yohannan]

As much as I will leave any SDA specific issues alone, whenever the topic of Pentecostal and Evangelical theology comes up within the West, we have this tendency to compare it with Roman Catholicism where many Western Pentecostal and Evangelical scholars and commentators seem to have blinkers on when it comes to the various Eastern Orthodox denominations. This is undoubtedly due to how the various Eastern Orthodox denominations have such a low presence in the West.

But, consider, high church Anglicanism and Lutheranism are not greatly different from Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

CCC 958 "Communion with the DEAD"

That is a Catholic doctrine in their Catechism - no doubt you have something similar. I am not convinced that one of you is better or worse off than the other in that regard.

We do have something similiar.

The Catholic church has the concept of "Confecting the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ" in the mass - and that the Priest "does not lose these powers" even if they are excommunicated or defrocked. Perhaps your denomination has the same teaching. I do not know about how the two compare at that point.

Confection, yes, although we would not use that word.

I do not believe we would say our clergy could consecrate the Eucharist if deposed.

By the time the schism developed between East and West - a number of doctrines now considered to be Roman Catholic had already come into being - you name a few so apparently we agree.

Indeed, but on these positions Catholicism is generally closer to Adventism.

Again the assumption you make is that the Catholic church did not start until the schism between east and west. ADventists never argue that the Catholic church had no doctrinal error until your schism.

I do not make this schism. Rather, I say that the fact that the Orthodox have persisted in being contra-Adventist despite never having been under Papal control refutes Adventist claims regarding the Papacy.

Both the orthodox and the Catholics on this board strongly object to the Protestant principle of "Sola Scriptura" testing of all doctrine and tradition as we see practiced in Mark 7:6-13 and in Acts 17:11. Those events predate both the RCC and the Orthodox Catholic churches.

Sola scriptura as an idea dates from the 16th century; in the event Adventists do not really subscribe to it, or rather, the Adventists tend regard as basically infallible the prophecies and doctrinal positions of EGW.

Error had already come in by the time of the schism.

There is no historical record of the early church believing in anything like Adventism, ever.

Therefore your OP does not refute Adventism because it did not accurately define what the differences are -- having a false premise it proceded to refute its own straw man - which is not effective in refuting the real world version. ( A point that is true in general when it comes to the straw man )

You can say strawman, but the fact is that the Orthodox have always been by your standards "worse" than the Catholics, and this exposes a false dischotomy in the religious thought of EGW.

I am helping to improve the accuracy of the case you can make so presumably you could frame an accurate target "Adventism" and then without doubt find some tradition that declares this or that doctrine in Adventism to be out of line with the EO or the RCC doctrine/claim/version on the same subject. I am sure we can get there as we already have a list of doctrines where we clearly differ. But on what basis will you argue (for example) that "Communion with the Dead" is the right practice/doctrine and the Adventist claim that it is error - is wrong?? -- tradition?

Well strictly speaking I could claim Tradition, but the Orthodox consider Scripture to be a part of Tradition, a central part. However, there are scriptural examples of praying for the deceased, in, for example, some OT books whose canonicity you reject, but which the early church did regard as canonical, and what is more, our Lord never told us not to.

The idea that prayer for the dead is wrong is a concept unknown in Christianity before the 16th century.

 

[Biblicist]

But, consider, high church Anglicanism and Lutheranism are not greatly different from Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

I must admit that many Pentecostals and Evangelicals could very well view Lutheranism as being much the same as Roman Catholicsm but Anglicanism and even high church Anglicism is another thing altogether, in fact, Anglicism is a fairly complicated creature in my book where even Anthony C. Thiselton who is himself a high church Anglican would have very little in common with Romanism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism and with even various aspects of his own brand of high church Anglicism.

But as my exposure and connections to the various Eastern Orthodox denominations are non-existent then I should probably stay off this particular thread; though my initial comment was to point out that many (most) Western Pentecostals and Evangelicals can easily forget about the Eastern Orthodox denominations due to their often lack of presence within areas that we live in.

 

[BobRyan]

I do not make this schism. Rather, I say that the fact that the Orthodox have persisted in being contra-Adventist despite never having been under Papal control refutes Adventist claims regarding the Papacy.

If your argument is that there were no Popes until the schism between Rome and Constantinople - then we have a very different "history" in mind.

 

[Chesterton]

It's funny, Ms. White spoke well of Luther, and Luther spoke well of the Orthodox, so maybe you could like us if you tried?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

If your argument is that there were no Popes until the schism between Rome and Constantinople - then we have a very different "history" in mind.

No, my argument rather is that the Orthodox were never subject to the Papacy. If anything, the reverse was true until Chalcedon, in that the Roman church supported the decisions of the Orthodox at the first three ecumenical councils while not participating beyond sending a delegate (whereas the eastern Patriarchs were personally present).

 

[dzheremi]

I guess I don't know enough about SDAs in particular to know why this blindspot would be any more characteristic of them than it would be of any other Protestant group. Protestantism in any of its forms developed out of a reform movement within the Roman Catholic Church to deal with its own unique issues/abuses, after all. It didn't develop out of the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox of any other church. Protestants didn't even come to Egypt until around the 1850s. I guess I could see how the 'Romish-looking' aspects of other churches (like the dress or the use of incense or whatever) could give them pause or reason to believe that every other church is just like Rome to a greater or lesser extent, but that's neither here nor there, and in fact could even be understood in the sense that Rome really does teach that it is the only game in town and every other church that exists outside of it exists as a result of schism from it. That's not true at all, but if that's the only history you know (even if you don't know how it comes from an organization that you are protesting, so you accept it implicitly and unknowingly build your ecclesiological arguments around it not any less than your supposed enemy Rome does), I don't think you can reasonably be faulted for believing it. It's like when I talk to EO and they claim that we 'changed' the Trisagion, because they don't know that we have a completely different history about how it came to be than they do. So they confuse their particular tradition with Orthodoxy itself, in the same that Rome is traditional Christianity itself to those who have never heard anything else.

You can't very well chastise people for not knowing what they don't know that they don't know. (Not saying you're doing that, but this state of affairs is an explanation as to why SDA and other arguments against Rome from Protestants kinda back-handedly support Rome; they don't realize that that's what they are doing, because they don't have another way of looking at the history of the faith that doesn't ultimately revolve around Rome, since they are after all Western Christians, and Rome is the sole universally recognized apostolic see of the West. Rome is the center of their ecclesiological world. Ecclesiastically-speaking, it makes no sense to tell them about Etchmiadzin, Axum, Kottayam, Edessa, etc. and how they all existed and still exist without Rome having any say in anything they do when those places and their unique histories are all well outside of their vision of what Christianity even is. Combine that with Rome's insistence that everything comes from it, which their own history gives them no reason to doubt, and you've got the blindspot you've written about.)

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The SDA faith is characterized by an extreme opposition to Roman Catholicism. The Pope is considered to be or to have been the Beast, almost all aspects of doctrine held by Rome are rejected, even including basics such as the date of Pascha, and so on.

Now, all of this is predicated upon a false dichotomy wherein on the one hand you have Adventism and various Protestant churches of the radical reformed / Puritan Calvinist orientation, and on the other you have the Catholic church.

Setting aside the fact that this model ignores Anglicanism, it spectacularly fails to consider the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.

I propose that if one regards the Catholic Church as bad, the Orthodox must be regarded as infinitely worse. Whereas the Roman mass ends with "Ite, missa est," which simply means "Go, it is the dismissal," the Eastern Orthodox liturgy ends with petitions for the intercession of several saints. Whereas the Roman mass implies transubstantiation, a real change of the elements into the body and blood of our Lord is explicitly described in the epiclesis of all of the Eastern and Oriental liturgies, indeed, it is described twice in the Coptic liturgy, and furthermore there are congregational prayers which confess a belief in this change.

Whereas since Vatican II, Catholic bishops typically wear less elaborate vestments, Orthodox bishops have not changed their attire. Every Byzantine, Armenian and Coptic bishop wears a mitre more ornate than the disused tiaras of the Roman pontiff. These mitres can cost tens of thousands of dollars depending on the jewells included. Whereas most Roman Catholic parishes in the Latin Rite, especially those built or refurbished since Vatican II, feature sparse iconography, an intense level of iconography is considered mandatory in the Orthodox church. Whereas since the council of Trent, the Rood Screen dividing the chancel from the nave has been removed as a standard element of Catholic parishes, Orthodox parishes tend to feature an iconostasis or curtain which can conceal the altar entirely from the laity.

Now, what is interesting is that these Orthodox churches are not under the Roman Pope, and never have been. In adhering dogmatically to these principles, the Orthodox are pursuing a faith more extreme in its opposition to Adventist ideals without influence from the alleged "beast."

This, in my opinion, exposes a false dichotomy at the heart of Adventism and the prophecies of Ellen G. White, which suggests that she and other Adventists were either unaware of the Orthodox, or else did not care, owing to a desire to criticize a figure more well known and reviled among Protestants than the Orthodox patriarchs.

All criticisms in this thread can also be applied to Protestant churches that avidly dislike Catholicism while ignoring the Orthodox.

Are Orthodox churches "Roman"? Because SDA's relate the Catholic Church to the beast because it is the Roman Catholic Church i.e. the same Rome that was in Jesus' day.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Are Orthodox churches "Roman"? Because SDA's relate the Catholic Church to the beast because it is the Roman Catholic Church i.e. the same Rome that was in Jesus' day.

I suppose that depends on how one defines Roman. Greek Orthodox tend to regard themselves as true Romans and the modern day Romans as Frankish interopers; Fr. John C. Romanides took this to almost an absurd extent. Also the Arabic word for EOs is Rum, from Romiioi, a Greek word meaning "Roman."

However the EOs are not Roman in the sense that they were never subject to the dictates of the Roman archbishop, but were rather under the Greek speaking Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem.

The OOs became somewhat of a rebel faction in the Empire after Chalcedon and thus even in cases where they live in the former Empire are not usually regarded as "Roman."

 

[dzheremi]

The OOs became somewhat of a rebel faction in the Empire after Chalcedon and thus even in cases where they live in the former Empire are not usually regarded as "Roman."

It's not fair, is it? Egypt was within the Roman empire, too!

What's a Church gotta do to be considered Roman around here?!

Oggi Milano, domani il mundo!

 

[Paul Yohannan]

It's not fair, is it? Egypt was within the Roman empire, too!

What's a Church gotta do to be considered Roman around here?!

Oggi Milano, domani il mundo!

Hail Caesar perhaps?

 

[YouAreAwesome]

I suppose that depends on how one defines Roman. Greek Orthodox tend to regard themselves as true Romans and the modern day Romans as Frankish interopers; Fr. John C. Romanides took this to almost an absurd extent. Also the Arabic word for EOs is Rum, from Romiioi, a Greek word meaning "Roman."

However the EOs are not Roman in the sense that they were never subject to the dictates of the Roman archbishop, but were rather under the Greek speaking Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem.

The OOs became somewhat of a rebel faction in the Empire after Chalcedon and thus even in cases where they live in the former Empire are not usually regarded as "Roman."

So it sounds like the prophecy, according to SDA's, could be applied to the Roman Catholic's, the Greek Orthodox churches, and Eastern Orthodox churches. Interesting, something they probably didn't look into while establishing their "case".

 

[Paul Yohannan]

So it sounds like the prophecy, according to SDA's, could be applied to the Roman Catholic's, the Greek Orthodox churches, and Eastern Orthodox churches. Interesting, something they probably didn't look into while establishing their "case".

Note that the Greek Orthodox are Eastern Orthodox.

EOs: Greek, Cypriot, Antiochian (Rum/Romiioi) Russian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Serbian, Czech/Slovak, Polish, Moldovan, Ukrainian, Baltic states, Finnish, Georgian, Albanian, Montenegrin, Macedonian (well, schismatic, but still EO)

OOs: Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syriac, Indian (Malankara/Jacobite Syriac)