Adventism refuted by Orthodoxy

[YouAreAwesome]

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)

I know very little about these things, EO, OO who's what and where. You know why? BECAUSE I WAS RAISED AN SDA!!! Pretty funny really... the irony of it all...

 

[HeavenOnEarthNow]

I think the original post is quite right. I was brought up an SDA and soon realised that their view of Christian "history" as covered in prophecy left out the whole story of Orthodoxy - which is crazy if it is supposed to be God giving us the actual history of the church.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

I think the original post is quite right. I was brought up an SDA and soon realised that their view of Christian "history" as covered in prophecy left out the whole story of Orthodoxy - which is crazy if it is supposed to be God giving us the actual history of the church.

I was not raised SDA; I did not even closely look into their beliefs until encountering them in force on CF.com. What immediately struck me was that their doctrine in its opposition to Rome did not consider that Orthodoxy takes a more extreme stance on everything they dislike in the Roman church.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

On the non-Trinitarian aspect, a user in the traditional Adventist forum posted something I would like to reply to:

Regarding to the human nature of Jesus...

Last week I heard on the radio some Catholic announcements that they celebrate the Immaculate Conception on December 8th. It went on to say 'It is a common misunderstanding that the immaculate conception is that of Jesus'. But it actually is about Mary and how she was without the original sin.'

There you have it straight from the horse's mouth.

And This is how Jesus got his sinless human nature from his mother side because Mary was sinless...according to Catholics.

This is what I am trying to get at...

234 The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the "hierarchy of the truths of faith".---catholic catechism

In another word, all her other teachings including Mary's sinlessness, Jesus' sinless human nature and even Sunday(Lord's day) sanctity are based on or are derived from the trinity mystery.

Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

So what's the greatest mystery of Babylon the 2nd angel message calls us to expose? The catechism tells us.

And what's the abomination written on her forehead?

Daniel 12:11-12
[11] And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. [12] Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. …

We know 508AD is the starting point for both 1290 years and 1335 years when the trinitarians started their campaign to eradicate the non-trinitarians. This is when the abomination of desolation set up (EGW explained this to be the pagan standard is set up on the holy ground) ...until 1843.

What happened in 1843? That was when our pioneers preached the 1st angel's message without the pollution of the trinitarian mystery of Babylon.

Does this make sense?

This does not make sense because the doctrine of the Trinity is not proprietary to Roman Catholicism. The geographic region where most of the controversy regarding Arianism, Nicea and the Trinity was the Eastern empire, which fell on the Orthodox side of the Chalcedonian schism and the Great Schism of 1054.

The Orthodox furthermore do not believe in the Immaculate Conception; our concept of human nature relies on St. John Cassian rather than St. Augustine, and does not require our Lord or his human mother to have any discontinuity in terms of human nature from anyone else.

Now, there was no campaign started by Trinitarians to exterminate non-Trinitarians; had there been such a campaign it would have begun in the 380s under Emperor St. Theodosius I of Constantinople, who did eventually prohibit Arianism.

Rather, since the 320s, Arians tried repeatedly to exterminate Trinitarians, a process which continued after the majority of them converted to Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries.

This led to the extermination of Christianity in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, and its suppression in much of the Iberian peninsula before the Reconquista.

 

[Jadis40]

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

Don't forget too that the Methodists were part of the Anglican church. I don't think it was ever intended that you'd end up with two separate denominations. It's just the way things happened.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Don't forget too that the Methodists were part of the Anglican church. I don't think it was ever intended that you'd end up with two separate denominations. It's just the way things happened.

Indeed; Wesley was very close to Orthodoxy and also was apparently ordained a bishop by a Greek Orthodox prelate. His hand in creating the Methodist Episcopal Church of North America was forced by the C of E refusing to ordain clergy for the former colonies.

I tend to regard Methodism as a variant form of Anglicanism, since there are no real doctrinal differences.

 

[overcomer]

On the non-Trinitarian aspect, a user in the traditional Adventist forum posted something I would like to reply to:



This does not make sense because the doctrine of the Trinity is not proprietary to Roman Catholicism. The geographic region where most of the controversy regarding Arianism, Nicea and the Trinity was the Eastern empire, which fell on the Orthodox side of the Chalcedonian schism and the Great Schism of 1054.

The Orthodox furthermore do not believe in the Immaculate Conception; our concept of human nature relies on St. John Cassian rather than St. Augustine, and does not require our Lord or his human mother to have any discontinuity in terms of human nature from anyone else.

Now, there was no campaign started by Trinitarians to exterminate non-Trinitarians; had there been such a campaign it would have begun in the 380s under Emperor St. Theodosius I of Constantinople, who did eventually prohibit Arianism.

Rather, since the 320s, Arians tried repeatedly to exterminate Trinitarians, a process which continued after the majority of them converted to Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries.

This led to the extermination of Christianity in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, and its suppression in much of the Iberian peninsula before the Reconquista.

Why was my post dragged outside of our sub forum? It wasn't intended to debate any Catholics or Orthodox.

 

[dzheremi]

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.

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 which were not adopted by any church outside of the Roman/Latin cultural sphere. 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 according to anyone but the Roman Catholic Church, and Eastern Orthodox (Greeks, Russians, Romanians, etc.) and Oriental Orthodox (Egyptians, Syriacs, Armenians, etc.) are not Roman Catholics.

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, and hence in a backwards kind of way actually end up conforming to Rome's ecclesiology in a way that fatally harms those same arguments.

 

[sergio machado]

Forget everything. Bottom line:
USA = Modern Babylon The Great (Forget the Pope);
Barack Obama = The true Antrichrist and muslim´s hero;
Hillary Clinton = The harlot of Babylon (the witch that drinks the blood of the Saints);
Yellowstone = "The bottomless pit";
God´s advice = "Come out of Her my People !".

 

[BobRyan]

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).

If it is your claim that the EO was the only group creating doctrinal error - prior to the schism - and that the Pope simply went along with whatever the Eastern church told him was "doctrine" then you need some document - such as the Catholics have for showing that the Pope was establishing doctrine -- as well as the Ecumenical councils.

 

[Light of the East]

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.

Let's do it!!!!

Not that you will listen to anything the Bible has to say except your own twisted view.....but let's do it anyway!

 

[BobRyan]

Let's do it!!!!

Not that you will listen to anything the Bible has to say except your own twisted view.....but let's do it anyway!

"except your own twisted view"???

That was my clue to check the screen name "Light of the East" -- ok that explains it.

 

[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.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Dale]

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.




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.

Bob Ryan says that the notion that the SDA or their founder said that the Papacy or one of the early Popes is an antichrist or the antichrist is “making stuff up.” Let's take a look.


Life Sketches of Ellen White

~p. 101:
Chapter 13: Marriage and United Labors
Subheading: A View of the Heavenly Sanctuary


“I saw that God had not changed the Sabbath, for He never changes. But the pope had changed it from the seventh to the first day of the week; for he was to change times and laws.”

Ellen G. White (2010-12-05). Life Sketches of Ellen G. White (Kindle Location 1178). Copyright © 2010, Ellen G. White Estate, Inc.. Kindle Edition.


This is obviously a reference to Daniel 7:25, where the horn that arises from the great beast changes “the set times and the laws.”


He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time.
Daniel 7:25 NIV

Of course, Ellen White would have used the King James version, which uses “change times and laws.”

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Daniel 7:25 KJV


Ellen White implied that the Pope is the antichrist figure spoken of in Daniel 7, who changed the “times and laws.” It is possible that she made the same point elsewhere in her writing.

This does not make sense to me. I see no way to match the situation described in Daniel with the period of time when the SDA incorrectly believe that a Pope ordered Sunday worship.

 

[BobRyan]

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)

Do you say that because they call themselves EO? Or because they should be called EO??

 

[BobRyan]

Bob Ryan says that the notion that the SDA or their founder said that the Papacy or one of the early Popes is an antichrist or the antichrist is “making stuff up.” Let's take a look.
.

Let's start with the easy part of your post - instead of you quoting you as your "straw man" to accuse me... why don't you quote me saying what you just claimed I said?

You make a statement about antichrist - then claim that I said it. But you then provide no statement of me saying what you said about the antichrist... wouldn't it have been better to have quoted me rather than quoting "you" on that subject - so you could make your case?

Can't do it?

Well then you prove me right about one thing - I said that someone is 'making stuff up'

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Indeed - you will not read very many statement about Moscow or Asia in Protestant histories regarding the birth of Protestant groups -- nor do you find it here in the chapters on the reformation and the various catholic reformers that pointed out the problems in the dark-ages oriented church from which they were cast out -

Online Books: The Great Controversy

 

[YouAreAwesome]

The Catholic Church was first accused of being the little horn of Daniel 7 in the 1500s before Adventism existed right? It was in fact the most common interpretation since then wasn't it? Martin Luther championed the idea I think.

 

[Anguspure]

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.

Don’t you know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for God’s temple is sacred, and you together are that temple.

Do not deceive yourselves. If any of you think you are wise by the standards of this age, you should become “fools” so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness” ; and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.” So then, no more boasting about human leaders! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephasc or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

If it is in Christ then it is all ours, whatever the flavour.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

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

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

However, Calvin, unlike Luther, did actually protest the Orthodox as well as the Catholics, referring to the Greeks as the "worst of idolaters."

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