Being "Biblical" Is not Enough.

[Pavel Mosko]

This thread is based on a pet peeve of various Protestants tossing out that such and such belief/ practice of the ancient Church is "unbiblical" when it is in fact based on stuff out of the Bible, but it comes from a very different theological mind set than the person making such a claim.

Post 1 (I got a few different bullet points to discuss on this OP).


1A) I think it should be rightly pointed out that probably the majority of heretics use scripture in some way or another.

Even Gnostics, New Agers, and Humanists sometimes quote the Bible. Making an appeal to scripture is helpful in indicating that people on spiritual matters should have something to base their decisions other than personal opinion and hunches, but it really is the lowest of possible bars because there are many kinds of biblical appeals and many of them are not very good at all. Probably the most vivid example of this are snake handling Pentecostals. They handle poisonous snakes during their church services as a kind of ordinance based on the literal passage of the Great Commission in the book of Mark that speaks of in Mark 16)

17 And these signs will follow those who [d]believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they[e] will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Snake Handlers believe they are "being Biblical" on this issue, but the majority of Christians of not just present times but all through history would find their hermeneutics and other Apriori theological assumptions that would lead them to do things like handle rattle snakes and drink jars full of deadly poison to not only to be idiosyncratic, but also bizarre, badly thought out and dangerous.


1B) As I said recently a different message board, on a somewhat different but related topic. "It kind of reminds me of the book of James where the apostle says to his readers concerning the profession of God's unity in the Shema, that it is good, "but even the demons know that and shudder."

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Yes, a lot of biblical philosophies operate counter to principles in scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

This thread is based on a pet peeve of various Protestants tossing out that such and such belief/ practice of the ancient Church is "unbiblical" when it is in fact based on stuff out of the Bible, but it comes from a very different theological mind set

No matter "The mind set" the question is the same -- is it refuted by scripture or affirmed by it.

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

It does not say "to see if some tradition supported Paul's statement"
It does not say "to see if their magesterium - already approved of Paul's teaching"

than the person making such a claim.

Post 1 (I got a few different bullet points to discuss on this OP).


1A) I think it should be rightly pointed out that probably the majority of heretics use scripture in some way or another.

Which is not what makes them heretics and is not what makes their doctrine wrong.

 

[Hazelelponi]

This thread is based on a pet peeve of various Protestants tossing out that such and such belief/ practice of the ancient Church is "unbiblical" when it is in fact based on stuff out of the Bible, but it comes from a very different theological mind set than the person making such a claim.

Post 1 (I got a few different bullet points to discuss on this OP).


1A) I think it should be rightly pointed out that probably the majority of heretics use scripture in some way or another.

Even Gnostics, New Agers, and Humanists sometimes quote the Bible. Making an appeal to scripture is helpful in indicating that people on spiritual matters should have something to base their decisions other than personal opinion and hunches, but it really is the lowest of possible bars because there are many kinds of biblical appeals and many of them are not very good at all. Probably the most vivid example of this are snake handling Pentecostals. They handle poisonous snakes during their church services as a kind of ordinance based on the literal passage of the Great Commission in the book of Mark that speaks of in Mark 16)

17 And these signs will follow those who [d]believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they[e] will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Snake Handlers believe they are "being Biblical" on this issue, but the majority of Christians of not just present times but all through history would find their hermeneutics and other Apriori theological assumptions that would lead them to do things like handle rattle snakes and drink jars full of deadly poison to not only to be idiosyncratic, but also bizarre, badly thought out and dangerous.


1B) As I said recently a different message board, on a somewhat different but related topic. "It kind of reminds me of the book of James where the apostle says to his readers concerning the profession of God's unity in the Shema, that it is good, "but even the demons know that and shudder."

I guess I'm confused as to what point your trying to make?

Are you placing mainstream biblical beliefs held by the majority of protestants on par with snake handling here?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I guess I'm confused as to what point your trying to make?

Are you placing mainstream biblical beliefs held by the majority of protestants on par with snake handling here?

No!

I basically already said it in the opening line/s, but to explain it in a different way. Some Protestants will make it sound that various Orthodox, Catholics etc. folks who have various practices and beliefs that differ from those that they are not using the Bible, got no knowledge of the Bible etc. when the shoe is more on the other foot so to speak (for those making such aspersions). On another board on a similar topic, I actually used the old "I did not just Fall Off a Turnip Truck yesterday" line to describe that.


The other aspect of the thread to hopefully be covered later is on some specific Eastern and Early Church concepts that are equivalents to the Protestant "Biblical" and "Scriptural" that I believe are actually better than Sola Scriptura lingo in their specificity and exactness, but that will be something to cover further in the thread.


But the overall parting thought of the first post is how low "scriptural" can be as far as buzzwords go. (Because most heretical or heterodox groups and people use it in one way or another, and they mean all kinds of different things by that, sometimes it is only using one verse out of context in a weird way.)

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Post 2 Theology of the Soundbite

Some folks tend to base their theology on specific proof texts and tend to go with verses that sound strong (dramatic). I tend to call this "Theology of the Sound Bite", because they tend to use the Bible in a Sound bite way, in much the way that modern politicians and "influencers" seem to try to get pithy quotes used in news columns, broadcasts and Tweets. Some of this comes because some verses "Preach Well" (are snappy and dramatic) some preachers can almost riff on them like a rapper.



A) I really saw a lot of this back in my days hanging with Pentecostals and Charismatics in the 1990s. It's hard to think of specific examples, but I often found people using a passage in an extreme way compared to how the conservative Lutherans I was raised with would look at an issue. My cradle conservative Lutheran pastors as a whole were against being rash and wanted you to think about a given problem from all kinds of angles (and Books of the Bible) rather than just grab one passage in a really extreme way.

I guess probably the best example of this is in the consumption of alcohol. Most of the people I knew, had a visceral reaction to any alcohol consumption whatsoever in their midst but anyone with any insight and awareness would realize there are occasions where even Jesus drank real alcoholic wine, that real wine was used in the OT drink offerings, in the Passover and the Eucharist for most of Church history (and this actually has theological significance) and such sentiments really have the problem of internal consistency because based on them Jesus would be a sinful wine bibber that some Pharisees considered him to be!



B) Some folks believe divorce is a worse sin than murder! (Based on the specifics of the Gospel passage/s where Jesus talks about divorce and some church polity around it)

I was informed of this a long time ago, back in 1996 while taking a class in Systematic Theology at Fuller Theology Seminary (Northern California Extension campus). The professor in the class mentioned the above in class, in passing or more exactly that he has known women in abusive marriages and the congregations and pastors would rather they stay in their marriage and be tortured and possibly killed than divorce their husband. As a former psychology student (originally intending on going into mental health) I was really surprised at this! I thought it was really rare, then a few years back I had a friend who is also a Messianic Rabbi experience the same problem only as a man married to an abusive narcistic wife. And of course, I have taken a look at some of the Christian Advice and marriage threads and see this is much more common than I would have ever guessed.



C) The ancient Arian heresy which denied the full deity of Christ and the Trinity, and the personhood of the Holy Spirit is based on this "sound bite" approach to the Bible, but especially certain New Testament proof texts.

 

[Hazelelponi]

but to explain it in a different way.

Oh ok... Lol. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[The Liturgist]

No matter "The mind set" the question is the same -- is it refuted by scripture or affirmed by it.

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

It does not say "to see if some tradition supported Paul's statement"
It does not say "to see if their magesterium - already approved of Paul's teaching"


Which is not what makes them heretics and is not what makes their doctrine wrong.

Well to be fair, in the case of the SDA church, Adventist interpretations are invariably those of Ellen G. White, since the SDA considers her an inspired prophet (while most other Christians do not, for various reasons, ranging from highly uncoventional interpretations to historical errors in The Great Controversy).

With regards to SDA hermeneutics, it feels like Adventists read the Bible to confirm what EGW said, rather than reading it to see what it says with an open mind. Now, to be fair, this is also the basis of hermeneutics in many traditional churches, with only a few systematic theologians like Karl Barth really constructing an exegesis without reference to tradition. So the way many people define Sola Scriptura, more accurately called Nuda Scriptura, was best executed by Karl Barth, as he conducted the most thorough exegesis of the Bible without closely following an existing tradition.

Now, Sola Scriptura properly defined, as meant by Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, and other early reformers like Melancthon, Zwingli, Boucher, etc, as well as later Protestant theologians like Jacobus Arminius and John Wesley, held up scripture as the primary rule of faith, but looked to tradition, specifically that of the Early Church and in several cases the Eastern churches (for example, Cranmer and later Anglican liturgists quoted the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. James, in the Church of England Book of Common Prayer, and the Scottish and American editions of the Book of Common Prayer in the case of St. James (which is where the Epiclesis in the Holy Communion liturgy was sourced from). John Calvin for his part extensively quoted the early church fathers, and the phrase Consensus Patrum, meaning Consensus of the Fathers, was coined by Calvinist theologians.

So really it becomes a matter of whose interpretation do we trust. Do we trust that of the Patristic theologians like St. Basil the Great, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzus and St. Irenaeus of Lyons, to name just a few, and do we ignore or accept the contributions, for example, of the Roman Catholic Scholastic theologians who in RC thought succeeded the Fathers in the Medieval era, and who remained dominant into the 19th century, or do we follow the Orthodox Fathers of the same era, or reject both and side with the Reformers in their interpretation of Patristics? Or do we just discard Patristics and adhere to the Neo-Orthodox movement in Calvinism that resulted from the work of Karl Barth, or the Restorationist exegesis of the Stone-Campbell Movement or the Quakers, or do we accept Ellen G. White as an inspired prophet and follow her exegesis?

 

[ozso]

This thread is based on a pet peeve of various Protestants tossing out that such and such belief/ practice of the ancient Church is "unbiblical" when it is in fact based on stuff out of the Bible, but it comes from a very different theological mind set than the person making such a claim.

Post 1 (I got a few different bullet points to discuss on this OP).


1A) I think it should be rightly pointed out that probably the majority of heretics use scripture in some way or another.

Even Gnostics, New Agers, and Humanists sometimes quote the Bible. Making an appeal to scripture is helpful in indicating that people on spiritual matters should have something to base their decisions other than personal opinion and hunches, but it really is the lowest of possible bars because there are many kinds of biblical appeals and many of them are not very good at all. Probably the most vivid example of this are snake handling Pentecostals. They handle poisonous snakes during their church services as a kind of ordinance based on the literal passage of the Great Commission in the book of Mark that speaks of in Mark 16)

17 And these signs will follow those who [d]believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they[e] will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Snake Handlers believe they are "being Biblical" on this issue, but the majority of Christians of not just present times but all through history would find their hermeneutics and other Apriori theological assumptions that would lead them to do things like handle rattle snakes and drink jars full of deadly poison to not only to be idiosyncratic, but also bizarre, badly thought out and dangerous.


1B) As I said recently a different message board, on a somewhat different but related topic. "It kind of reminds me of the book of James where the apostle says to his readers concerning the profession of God's unity in the Shema, that it is good, "but even the demons know that and shudder."

The thing is though, a lot of those beliefs and practices don't go back to the original Church. They started taking shape as the centuries passed and weren't fully affirmed until the 5th century of the Church and onward. Eventually Catholics started realizing these beliefs and practices were not found in Scripture, nor were they taught or practiced for centuries, which is one of the reasons why those Catholics started the Reformation. Eliminating those later beliefs and practices took the Church back to where it was before they started. But yes, unfortunately that lead to some strange and heretical fringe outcroppings and cults. But none of that is part of original mainline Protestantism. You won't find the Anglican Church endorsing dancing with vipers any time soon.

 

[ozso]

No matter "The mind set" the question is the same -- is it refuted by scripture or affirmed by it.

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

It does not say "to see if some tradition supported Paul's statement"
It does not say "to see if their magesterium - already approved of Paul's teaching"


Which is not what makes them heretics and is not what makes their doctrine wrong.

The thing is 99% of all Christendom considers Seventh Day Adventism and Christian Sabbatarianism to be heretical. Mainly by way of studying the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by SDA church members - are SO.

 

[BobRyan]

The thing is 99% of all Christendom considers Seventh Day Adventism and Christian Sabbatarianism to be heretical.

Not in real life as you can see here at CF it is a violation of board rules to do such a thing and it is not because this is a Seventh-day Adventist board. It is not because the founder/owner of this board is "Sabbatarian" either.

What is more Christianity Today refers to the Seventh-day Adventist church as the "fifth largest Christian denomination in the world" in 2015.

What is more - in the book "Kingdom of the Cults" Walter Martin includes Adventists in the Appendix and devotes a lot of time to explaining why they are a true Christian group even though he is not Adventist and he objects to a few of the Adventist doctrines just as he objects to various doctrines of many Christian groups.

By not reading , or not paying attention to details - some folks might get to "99% don't know this" ideas - but there is a very good reason why this entire CF board is an example of the falsity of such a claim.

Paul of course was giving Gospel preaching "Every Sabbath" Acts 18:4 to both gentiles and Jews.

 

[BobRyan]

The thing is though, a lot of those beliefs and practices don't go back to the original Church.

The original Christian church doctrine is found in the NT.

In the NT Paul predicts that errors would come in "immediately after my departure" Acts 20.

So no wonder "errors come in as the centuries passed" - such as purgatory, 958 communion with the dead etc.

They started taking shape as the centuries passed and weren't fully affirmed until the 5th century of the Church and onward. Eventually Catholics started realizing these beliefs and practices were not found in Scripture,

Indeed - so then there arose "protesting Catholics" or what we call today 'The Protestant Reformation" as the protesting Catholics (like Martin Luther) tried to "reform their own church" and soon realized it would have to be done from outside of it.

which is one of the reasons why those Catholics started the Reformation. Eliminating those later beliefs and practices took the Church back to where it was before they started.

exactly

 

[BobRyan]

Well to be fair, in the case of the SDA church, Adventist interpretations are invariably those of Ellen G. White

To be fair - Ellen White was a Seventh-day Adventists so then her views like mine - would be "Seventh-day Adventist"

It would be like noticing that some Catholic Bishop's views "are Catholic" -- that does not mean that all Catholics on planet Earth got their views from him or that he is "their text".

When SDAs do evangelism it is not of the form "look at what our early leaders said - so this must be so since they thought it was so" as we both know. Rather our published online public Bible lessons for evangelism are nothing but "sola scriptura" so the reader either agrees or not - that the Bible teaches what we are claiming.

This is irrefutable, and a details that I notice you do not get to in your post for some reason.

With regards to SDA hermeneutics, it feels like Adventists read the Bible to confirm what EGW said

Until you actually take the time to read -- the lessons we used to show non-SDAs what we believe and why.

Or do you "imagine to yourself" that all non-SDAs go read Ellen White first - compile a list of her views -- then go to the online Bible studies and try to see if they can get the Bible to agree with what they are so sure Ellen White thought?

At some point those suggestions of yours need a little work

 

[Pavel Mosko]

So really it becomes a matter of whose interpretation do we trust. Do we trust that of the Patristic theologians like St. Basil the Great, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory Nazianzus and St. Irenaeus of Lyons, to name just a few, and do we ignore or accept the contributions, for example, of the Roman Catholic Scholastic theologians who in RC thought succeeded the Fathers in the Medieval era, and who remained dominant into the 19th century, or do we follow the Orthodox Fathers of the same era, or reject both and side with the Reformers in their interpretation of Patristics? Or do we just discard Patristics and adhere to the Neo-Orthodox movement in Calvinism that resulted from the work of Karl Barth, or the Restorationist exegesis of the Stone-Campbell Movement or the Quakers, or do we accept Ellen G. White as an inspired prophet and follow her exegesis?

You know I'm on the verge of doing another thread on how the "Trinitarianism" of Adventism according to their official sources is actually Arianism, and Tritheism simply dressed up with the term "Trinity". Infact, it is worse than the actual original Arianism because White in some of her visions and books seems to advocate the notion that God the Father has a Physical body!



Anyway, there is a real "Fruit of the Poisoned tree." problem even if Adventists are trying hard to be Ecumenical, based on the work of their "Pioneers", and their original Magisterial sources through which they interpret the Bible through.



It was funny almost 20 years ago when I saw a tract on the Coptic Orthodox Church's position and saw who they saw as "Christian" (all mainstream Protestants and folks in the other ancient Communions). I really thought Pope Shenouda was 20-30 years out of date concerning having the Adventists on the bad list. Which would not have been surprising, seeing how Ecumenicism often works really slow and it takes a long time for things to be updated.

But now I know better! (Pope Shenouda was right on that! and Walter Martin and I were wrong).

 

[Pavel Mosko]

No matter "The mind set" the question is the same -- is it refuted by scripture or affirmed by it.

Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

It does not say "to see if some tradition supported Paul's statement"
It does not say "to see if their magesterium - already approved of Paul's teaching"


Which is not what makes them heretics and is not what makes their doctrine wrong.

Thanks!

But I will disagree quoting something I wrote in the past.

quote
Most loved Logical Fallacies and Erroneous Reasoning Methodologies Embraced by Charismatics
This is one topic I like talking about because it really ends up being the giant elephant in the room that often is ignored or dealt with only obliquely. So I figured I would delve into the subject of faulty epistemology when it comes to the charismatic movement.


1) Naive Realism
This is the basic notion some folks have that they can see reality perfectly clear. If they are upset over something, it is because such and such a thing is bad (and there is no possibility that they are reacting because of their own baggage, personal bias, history etc.). We all however see and interpret through filters or to put it Biblically “We see through a glass darkly”.
quote


If you look at Church history you will realize it is not just about the scriptures but what people assume when they interpret them, and we all interpret them whether or not you want to believe it. If you do not,want to concede this then we got another problem namely

Euchites - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ozso]

What is more Christianity Today refers to the Seventh-day Adventist church as the "fifth largest Christian denomination in the world" in 2015.

What is more - in the book "Kingdom of the Cults" Walter Martin includes Adventists in the Appendix and devotes a lot of time to explaining why they are a true Christian group even though he is not Adventist and he objects to a few of the Adventist doctrines just as he objects to various doctrines of many Christian groups.

From Walter Martin's article in Christianity Today:

"HETERODOX DOCTRINE
Historic Christianity differs from the theology of Seventh-day Adventism in the following major ways:"

Christianity Today Seventh-Day Adventism Walter R. Martin

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Not in real life as you can see here at CF it is a violation of board rules to do such a thing and it is not because this is a Seventh-day Adventist board. It is not because the founder/owner of this board is "Sabbatarian" either.

What is more Christianity Today refers to the Seventh-day Adventist church as the "fifth largest Christian denomination in the world" in 2015.

What is more - in the book "Kingdom of the Cults" Walter Martin includes Adventists in the Appendix and devotes a lot of time to explaining why they are a true Christian group even though he is not Adventist and he objects to a few of the Adventist doctrines just as he objects to various doctrines of many Christian groups.

By not reading , or not paying attention to details - some folks might get to "99% don't know this" ideas - but there is a very good reason why this entire CF board is an example of the falsity of such a claim.

Paul of course was giving Gospel preaching "Every Sabbath" Acts 18:4 to both gentiles and Jews.

I think you may be confusing the egalitarian nature of CF; inside CF we abide by their rules; outside of CF there is truly a different reality. CF is not the measure or the judge of Christianity; that would be our Lord Jesus Christ and the Divine Word of God.

 

[The Liturgist]

The thing is though, a lot of those beliefs and practices don't go back to the original Church. They started taking shape as the centuries passed and weren't fully affirmed until the 5th century of the Church and onward. Eventually Catholics started realizing these beliefs and practices were not found in Scripture, nor were they taught or practiced for centuries, which is one of the reasons why those Catholics started the Reformation. Eliminating those later beliefs and practices took the Church back to where it was before they started. But yes, unfortunately that lead to some strange and heretical fringe outcroppings and cults. But none of that is part of original mainline Protestantism. You won't find the Anglican Church endorsing dancing with vipers any time soon.

Of course what you say is very specific to the experience of the Western Church. We can trace the changes that happened in the Eastern churches with much greater ease, and we can confidently assert that the only major shifts to happen in the East were the rejection of Chiliasm and Quartodecimianism, for various reasons, the former at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 and the latter at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381 AD.

It is also relatively easy to trace changes in Roman praxis, and also the lack of change, that caused the Reformation. Ironically, the Roman Church was one of the first, probably the first*, to translate its liturgy and scriptures to the vernacular, under Archbishop Victor in the Second Century, and later replaced its initial Classical Latin translation of the Bible, the Vetus Latina, with the Vulgate, as the main Bible to be read in church and privately, this translation by St. Jerome being motivated to a large extent by the transition to Vulgar Latin dialects as the prevailing languages of the Western Roman Empire (just as in the East, the Demotic Greek of Athens became the Koine Greek of the New Testament became Byzantine Greek, the Demotic Egyptian language became the Coptic dialects before Muslim fundamentalists suppressed the vernacular use of Coptic around the 10th century, and Classical Syriac became the prevalent Aramaic dialect among Christians (before itself being replaced by derivative dialects such as Turoyo and Mhlaso in the West, and Neo-Assyrian Aramaic in the East.

*The Aramaic speaking churches founded in Edessa, Nineveh, Seleucia-Cstesiphon and Kerala, India,mby St. Thomas the Apostle and his disciples from the Seventy, Saints Addai** and Mari, always used Aramaic, chiefly Syriac, although a complete easily readable Syriac Bible did not appear until the Peshitta in the fourth century (but before that, there was the Vetus Syra translation of the Gospels, which uses the same rare Western text type as the Vetus Latina, and which replaced the dreadful Gospel Harmony called the Diatessaron, compiled by Tatian, who later founded a heretical Gnostic sect.

** Some think Saint Addai is the same as Saint Thaddeus the Apostle, which is possible, but I think it is more likely that there were two Addais, just as there was St. James the Great and St. James the Just, and St. John the Apostle and Theologian, and St. John Mark.

 

[ozso]

Of course what you say is very specific to the experience of the Western Church. We can trace the changes that happened in the Eastern churches with much greater ease, and we can confidently assert that the only major shifts to happen in the East were the rejection of Chiliasm and Quartodecimianism, for various reasons, the former at the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 and the latter at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381 AD.

It is also relatively easy to trace changes in Roman praxis, and also the lack of change, that caused the Reformation. Ironically, the Roman Church was one of the first, probably the first*, to translate its liturgy and scriptures to the vernacular, under Archbishop Victor in the Second Century, and later replaced its initial Classical Latin translation of the Bible, the Vetus Latina, with the Vulgate, as the main Bible to be read in church and privately, this translation by St. Jerome being motivated to a large extent by the transition to Vulgar Latin dialects as the prevailing languages of the Western Roman Empire (just as in the East, the Demotic Greek of Athens became the Koine Greek of the New Testament became Byzantine Greek, the Demotic Egyptian language became the Coptic dialects before Muslim fundamentalists suppressed the vernacular use of Coptic around the 10th century, and Classical Syriac became the prevalent Aramaic dialect among Christians (before itself being replaced by derivative dialects such as Turoyo and Mhlaso in the West, and Neo-Assyrian Aramaic in the East.

*The Aramaic speaking churches founded in Edessa, Nineveh, Seleucia-Cstesiphon and Kerala, India,mby St. Thomas the Apostle and his disciples from the Seventy, Saints Addai** and Mari, always used Aramaic, chiefly Syriac, although a complete easily readable Syriac Bible did not appear until the Peshitta in the fourth century (but before that, there was the Vetus Syra translation of the Gospels, which uses the same rare Western text type as the Vetus Latina, and which replaced the dreadful Gospel Harmony called the Diatessaron, compiled by Tatian, who later founded a heretical Gnostic sect.

** Some think Saint Addai is the same as Saint Thaddeus the Apostle, which is possible, but I think it is more likely that there were two Addais, just as there was St. James the Great and St. James the Just, and St. John the Apostle and Theologian, and St. John Mark.

Do you realize most Christians aren't going to be able to follow what you said without having to do a lot of Googling?
I'm talking about Catholic and Orthodox practices, beliefs, traditions and teachings that are familiar to Protestants, in their familiar terms, which they don't hold to. Things such as the veneration of Mary. The venation of saints. Praying to Mary. Lighting candles for the dead. Praying to and for the dead. The Magisterium of the Pope and Cardinals. Holy water. Confessing to a priest to receive absolution. The transubstantiation of the Eucharist. Praying with a Rosary. Basically that which Catholics and Orthodox do that Protestants don't do - because those things, as far as they're concerned, are not found in scripture.

 

[The Liturgist]

The original Christian church doctrine is found in the NT.

In the NT Paul predicts that errors would come in "immediately after my departure" Acts 20.

So no wonder "errors come in as the centuries passed" - such as purgatory, 958 communion with the dead etc.

Firstly let me say I am opposed to anyone who denies that Adventists are Christians, since Adventists agree with the CF.com Statement of Faith, which is brilliantly crafted to separate counterfeit Christian cults and heretical groups such as LDS, J/Ws and other Arians, Unitarians, Christian Science and Swedenborgians from legitimate Christians such as the Seventh Day Adventists, the Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, the Baptists, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Non-Denominational Evangelists, the Calvinists, the Methodists, and every other group whose members can agree with the Nicene Creed and the other parts of the Statement of Faith.

Now, I don’t agree with all Adventist doctrines and I do not think Adventists should classify themselves as Sola Scriptura, but I recognize Adventists as Christians and regard you as a friend despite our differences of opinion, particularly since we agree on the most critical issues of moral theology such as the need for Christians to be pro-life, to reject the temptation to engage in homosexual acts or to perform gay weddings or blessings of homosexual unions, and so forth.

In response to your quote above, I believe St. Paul was referring to the explosion of Gnostic heresies and other heretical sects like the Montanists that began in the late 1st century after all the Twelve except St. John the Beloved had been martyred, and continued until the present.

I would also note that purgatory was always rejected by the Church of the East, which for many centuries was geographically the largest, stretching from Yemen to Sri Lanka and Tibet and Aleppo to Mongolia, and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, whose existence EGW does not even seem to address in her works.

The Great Controversy is a prophecy specific to Christianity in the West, which does not mean it is false, but rather, regional, and it is recognized even by Roman Catholics that prior to the Reformation and Counter Reformation they had some serious problems, during the Avignon Papacy, the corruption of the Borgias, the failed militarism of Pope Julius II, etc.

However, our disagreements aside, we both agree that Christians who agree with the CF.com Statement of Faith are Christians. Indeed I think the Statement of Faith is the ideal litmus test for whether or not someone is a member of an authentic Christian church or a counterfeit church, heretical sect or cult, like the J/Ws and Mormons.