Why are SDA so paraoid of Jesuits?

[LarryP2]

It is interesting how their obsessive Sabbath fetish must be based on that paranoia-inducing Investigative Judgment.

Sabbath Keeping always has been a total non-issue to Christianity. There is a complete absence of any dispute among Christians that Sunday keeping commenced immediately after the earth-shattering, searing, hydrogen nuclear blast of the Resurrection, which violently swept up the entire Gentile world into the folds of Christianity. It laughably absurd to imagine that they would have kept the Sabbath after seeing and experiencing something like that!!

And the Sabbath commemorates.......what? Oh yeah, that deal about Israelites Slaves being delivered out of Egypt.

And Sunday commemorates......what? Oh. Yes that. That deal about being on my way to Damascus to slaughter Christians, seeing a Resurrected Christ, and then suddenly being blinded for a week. After which becoming the foremost Christian Apostle and missionary to the Gentiles. Little stuff like that.

No, I think the Early Greek Gentile Christians got over the habit pretty quickly of commemorating the Hebrews being delivered from Egyptian slavery.

 

[LarryP2]

Here's a thread that is all too indicative of the Adventist depreciation of the Resurrection. It is a thread on the Sabbath in the "Traditional Adventism" forums:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2560580/

I tediously scrolled down through each and every single post and found just four mentions of either "Jesus" or the "Resurrection."

Over 600 posts.

One thing we can be assured of, the Sabbath emphatically does not focus one's mind on the precious savior and his resurrection. We can also be assured beyond all reasonable doubt that Sabbath Keeping has NOTHING to do with Christianity.

 

[BobRyan]

Here's a thread that is all too indicative of the Adventist depreciation of the Resurrection. It is a thread on the Sabbath in the "Traditional Adventism" forums:

http://www.christianforums.com/t2560580/

I tediously scrolled down through each and every single post and found just four mentions of either "Jesus" or the "Resurrection."

.

Wonderful story telling - not much else.

In the actual Bible God said that the Sabbath is a memorial of His work in Creation (Ex 20:11).

And He said that the Lord's Supper (not week day 1) is a memorial of the death of Christ.

So then the poster above wants us all to be shocked that when we talk about God's own choice for a memorial of Creation - that He does not use it instead for a discussion of the cross.

In the same way that SDA threads on the Lord's Supper - the Communion service do not focus on the 7 day creation week.

Now apparently there are "some" who are supposed to be outright shocked regarding these obvious details. Be that as it may.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It is interesting how their obsessive Sabbath fetish .

k

How instructive the vitriol and acrimony are the sum and substance of some who choose to be at war with God's Ten Commandments.

How nice the contrast of even some pro-Sunday sources that affirm the TEN Commandments.

 

[BobRyan]

"The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith was the declaration, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed". (Daniel 8:14)

You can have no clearer statement of Seventh Day Adventism's anti-Christian cult status.

The nonsense that refers to Dan 8:14 as cultish and anti-Christian speaks for itself.

In the case above - even Walter Martin notes that the Adventists were being primarily opposed for their stand in favor of premillennialism.

I prefer actual facts and apparently Walter Martin had a few.

 

[BobRyan]

Sounds a lot like "Ex Cathedra" -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power,


Where the Pope said " the General, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said Society to be FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED" you limit to "suppressed"

You provide an 'anticlaricalism' comment not found at all in the long list of reasons the Pope gave for why he and many Popes before him tried to exterminate the Jesuits "forever". FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED

One might suspect revisionist history - why not take the actual document and walk through the main points? There are a "number of details" in that document that your summary misses.

And of course the "bigger issue" is that apparently whatever the Pope says in the "fullness of Apostolic power" and "the seal of the Fisherman" - to be "forever" in place - can be over turned on a mere whim.

Seems like that ended the infallibility doctrine regarding ex cathedra statements.

Ex Cathedra statements only apply to statements based upon faith (doctrine) and morals. .

Read the document carefully and you will find that the Pope is referring to the morals, faith and doctrine of the Jesuits.

But if your idea of discounting the "forever extinguishing" of the Jesuits and also the Lateran IV "extermination of heretics" - well then I think we can have a "no excuses" statement from the Vatican that Lateran IV was in error and that those protesting Catholics trying to correct abuses in the RCC should not have been "exterminated".

Sort of a "oops! that was a bad idea! we finally admit it" statement.

I don't notice any Protestant churches claiming "infallible extermination of Catholics" at the time of the reformation. Not even the ones in England.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

SDA is an odious, non-Christian cult, imho...

I hope this helps.

So then vitriol -- check

And acrimony -- check

"again".


in Christ,

Bob


oh no wait!! I think I was supposed to make some sweeping statement about "other Christians" or "ex SDAs" or ....

Well here is one - notice the pro-Sunday sources at the end of this post?

 

[MoreCoffee]

So then vitriol -- check
And acrimony -- check
"again".
in Christ,
Bob
oh no wait!! I think I was supposed to make some sweeping statement about "other Christians" or "ex SDAs" or .... Well here is one - notice the pro-Sunday sources at the end of this post?

It was his opinion, and everybody's got an opinion, right?

Mind you, the Investigative Judgement doctrine, and soul sleep, and annihilation, and having a prophetess, and Christ having a fallen human nature, and a bunch of other doctrines held by various SDA authorities over time as well as the early anti-trinitarianism of some of the movement's leaders does leave one wondering if the current leadership of the movement can subscribe to the Nicene Creed.

 

[BobRyan]

Sounds a lot like "Ex Cathedra" -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power,


Where the Pope said " the General, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said Society to be FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED" you limit to "suppressed"

You provide an 'anticlaricalism' comment not found at all in the long list of reasons the Pope gave for why he and many Popes before him tried to exterminate the Jesuits "forever". FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED

One might suspect revisionist history - why not take the actual document and walk through the main points? There are a "number of details" in that document that your summary misses.

And of course the "bigger issue" is that apparently whatever the Pope says in the "fullness of Apostolic power" and "the seal of the Fisherman" - to be "forever" in place - can be over turned on a mere whim.

Seems like that ended the infallibility doctrine regarding ex cathedra statements.



Read the document carefully and you will find that the Pope is referring to the morals, faith and doctrine of the Jesuits.

But if your idea of discounting the "forever extinguishing" of the Jesuits and also the Lateran IV "extermination of heretics" - well then I think we can have a "no excuses" statement from the Vatican that Lateran IV was in error and that those protesting Catholics trying to correct abuses in the RCC should not have been "exterminated".

Sort of a "oops! that was a bad idea! we finally admit it" statement.

I don't notice any Protestant churches claiming "infallible extermination of Catholics" at the time of the reformation. Not even the ones in England.

Here is an example of where I point to the Catholic statements - by the Pope who claimed to have "extinguished" the order.

It is not a question of "quoting some SDA" but rather a question of not ignoring what the Pope's themselves said about it.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It was his opinion, and everybody's got an opinion, right?

So then you end each of your posts with " " -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power..., " And then pass some judgment or terminate some clerical order??

I am not in the habit of it - but if you say everyone is doing it - well...

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am not Catholic and grew up SDA......

SDA is an odious, non-Christian cult, imho, that has very low self-esteem about itself. Which is the REAL basis for their anti-Jesuit diatribes. Most of the founders and early followers of SDA were so illiterate and ignorant they would have trouble writing or reading their own name. They absurdly predicted that Christ would return in 1844, and when that fell flat on its face, creating a horrendous public embarassment, they escalated the error by conjuring their bizarre "Investigative Judgment" doctrine out of thin air. The Doctrine is so ludicrous, it has been repeatedly denounced by many of their top-notch theologians over the years as being non-Biblical and completely contrary to the Gospel of Jesus. The SDA church rejects the Trinity as a hellish doctrine created by the Pope, and instead throughout their history have embraced various mutant heretical doctrines such as outright Arianism for the first 100 years. Although Adventists presently dishonestly state they believe in the Trinity, in reality they actually have their OWN definition of it which amounts to Tri-Theism (a watered-down Arianism with Christ some Divine attributes). They have never accepted orthodox Christianity's definition of the Trinity in full.

Because of this false doctrine of IJ, Adventists compounded the error again by announcing that Sabbath Keeping is necessary for Salvation, and asserted that the Pope "changed the Sabbath to Sunday. Which never happened (given that the Eastern Orthodox also insist that they worshiped on Sunday from the First Century, and were and are highly unlikely to have taken marching orders from any Pope!). They now hold that Catholics will one day start murdering anyone who does not worship on Sunday. This whole toxic stew of doctrine fits in well with their very human Jesus and their belief in a very partial atonement on the Cross.

Jesuits, by contrast, have been an amazing force for good in the world, founding many top-notch Universities and many amazingly-brilliant scientists that have done humanity incalculable good. Here again, their low self-esteem shines forth: They know that in a debate with a Jesuit (or really any educated person) their ludicrous and false doctrines would be shredded as there are no scriptural or historical basis for any of them. Adventism is a House of Cards, formed on false prophecies and easily provable lies, with more aberrant doctrines piled on top to hide the prior false doctrines.

I hope this helps.

It was his opinion, and everybody's got an opinion, right?

Mind you, the Investigative Judgement doctrine, and soul sleep, and annihilation, and having a prophetess, and Christ having a fallen human nature, and a bunch of other doctrines held by various SDA authorities over time as well as the early anti-trinitarianism of some of the movement's leaders does leave one wondering if the current leadership of the movement can subscribe to the Nicene Creed.

So then you end each of your posts with " " -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power..., " And then pass some judgment or terminate some clerical order??

I am not in the habit of it - but if you say everyone is doing it - well...

I was, of course, referring to the opinion expressed the first quote above. No doubt you misunderstood so this is an opportunity to correct your error.

 

[VictorC]

The nonsense that refers to Dan 8:14 as cultish and anti-Christian speaks for itself.

Your summary of the preceding post doesn't reflect what it actually says. The misapplication of Daniel 8:14 and the SDA church's reliance on this one verse is the topic, which is borne in a direct quote from Ellen White (cited) and this is what you're contending with.

In the case above - even Walter Martin notes that the Adventists were being primarily opposed for their stand in favor of premillennialism.

I prefer actual facts and apparently Walter Martin had a few.

Dr. Martin and Dr. Barnhouse concluded their interviews with GC officials with two major complaints, revolving around Ellen White's status as "a continuing and authoritative source of truth" (SDA FB #18), and the Investigative Judgment (SDA FB #24). They concluded that the SDA church needed to drop these from their Fundamental Beliefs, consistent with their embracing Questions on Doctrine that Dr. Martin preferred to accept as representative of Adventist doctrine over their other writings.

Before the GC discussions and the publication of Kingdom of the Cults, Dr. Walter Martin's earlier book The Rise of the Cults classified the SDA church as a cult. Based on QoD, he chose to remove that classification and codify that conclusion in Kingdom of the Cults.

His reliance on QoD as the sole determinant for that reclassification becomes more clear in his comments made in 1983:

Kingdom of the Cults’ is in print as a standard textbook and is used all over the world. It is now on its 37th printing, coming up for revision and expansion; and in there is a chapter on Adventism, which I put in deliberately. The book will be a classic for years. The chapters has got to be in there spelling out that Adventists are not a cult, because they are already classified that way. What better place to deal with it than in a classic book? Anthony Hoekema, came after me with a hammer and tongs; he is a friend of mine. And M.R. De Haan came after me, among other people because of the position I took. I haven't recanted my position, but if the Seventh-day Adventist denomination will not back up its answers with actions and put Questions on Doctrine back in print - and, in effect, take a strong stand against people in [the SDA] denomination who are very vocal and powerful group and who very well can bring the judgment of God on up - then they're in real trouble that I can't help them out of; and nobody else can either.

Now, the result today is that QoD isn't accepted and does not reflect Adventist doctrine. I just looked up the list of SDA Fundamental Beliefs on their official website; #18 still claims Ellen White to be "the Lord's messenger", and #24 still claims that Jesus "entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry" in 1844. The Adventist publication of Questions on Doctrine has been relegated to the trash, and Dr. Martin noted this in 1983 in the same interview as above:

After 150,000 copies, Questions on Doctrine was permitted to go out of print.... I believe it was deliberately removed by people who felt that it was a thorn in their theological flesh.” Martin also added, “You have to understand that 30 years ago there was a great confusion. As a matter of fact, today is still in many areas of Adventism. They had strains of Arian Christology; there were men in positions of authority who denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity. For all I know, some of them may still be there today. There were people who were absolute legalists, who believed that any person who kept Sunday - even in good conscience before God - right at that moment had the mark of the beast. And they were printing and distributing it under the official Adventist logos.

There has been no change in Adventism, as Dr. Walter Martin asserted in 1965. It is still properly classified as a cult, as he originally determined in his book The Rise of the Cults.

 

[LarryP2]

My oh My, BobRyan certainly overreacts to those pesky details about SDA's extremely odious anti-Trinitarian doctrines held by the anti-mainstream Christianity founders of the cult.

Give that the SDAs repeatedly have viciously smeared, slandered and portrayed the millions of devout followers of Jesus and Saints in the Catholic Church as the "harlot of Babylon" and the millions of devout Christians in the Protestant Churches as the "Apostate Daughters of the harlot of Babylon," you would think he would have developed some thicker skin by now! Especially given that the outright Saints in both traditions have represented Jesus on levels that any thinking Adventist should be deeply ashamed and embarrassed by his own Church's appalling record.

How about it Bob? Still think the bonafide Saints in the harlot of Babylon and their Harlot Daughters in the Protestant Churches are going to be incinerated because they worship on Sunday?

 

[Rick Otto]

We are all Jesuits deep down

Especially Ellen White.

LOL!
I do occaisionaly admire your sense of the absurd.

 

[MoreCoffee]

LOL!
I do occasionally admire your sense of the absurd.

 

[BobRyan]

Sounds a lot like "Ex Cathedra" -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power,


Where the Pope said " the General, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said Society to be FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED" you limit to "suppressed"

You provide an 'anticlaricalism' comment not found at all in the long list of reasons the Pope gave for why he and many Popes before him tried to exterminate the Jesuits "forever". FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED

One might suspect revisionist history - why not take the actual document and walk through the main points? There are a "number of details" in that document that your summary misses.

And of course the "bigger issue" is that apparently whatever the Pope says in the "fullness of Apostolic power" and "the seal of the Fisherman" - to be "forever" in place - can be over turned on a mere whim.

Seems like that ended the infallibility doctrine regarding ex cathedra statements.

very good points
I am curious as to why this is not counted under Papal infallibility

Indeed - especially given that the infallibility idea came along later - and then was retroactively applied to the past.

You would think that a Pope speaks on the faith, morals and practice of an entire religious order - and speaking "in all the fullness" of apostolic "power" -- would make "honorable mention" in that line of infallible statements.

But as someone has recently noted here - it is all just opinion and the opinion of Popes can be ignored the same as anyone else's.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

If the Jesuits were "forever" extinguished then how would Ellen White be their agent in creating a new religion to damage Protestantism?

Obviously the papal statement has been doctored by more of us Jesuit agents!

We're everywhere!!!

 

[Erose]

Sounds a lot like "Ex Cathedra" -- we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power,


Where the Pope said " the General, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said Society to be FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED" you limit to "suppressed"

You provide an 'anticlaricalism' comment not found at all in the long list of reasons the Pope gave for why he and many Popes before him tried to exterminate the Jesuits "forever". FOR EVER ANNULLED AND EXTINGUISHED

One might suspect revisionist history - why not take the actual document and walk through the main points? There are a "number of details" in that document that your summary misses.

And of course the "bigger issue" is that apparently whatever the Pope says in the "fullness of Apostolic power" and "the seal of the Fisherman" - to be "forever" in place - can be over turned on a mere whim.

Seems like that ended the infallibility doctrine regarding ex cathedra statements.





Indeed - especially given that the infallibility idea came along later - and then was retroactively applied to the past.

You would think that a Pope speaks on the faith, morals and practice of an entire religious order - and speaking "in all the fullness" of apostolic "power" -- would make "honorable mention" in that line of infallible statements.

But as someone has recently noted here - it is all just opinion and the opinion of Popes can be ignored the same as anyone else's.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, I know that you really don't care what the truth is in this situation, but an infallible statement by either the pope or through an Ecumenical Council, can only be on faith (doctrine) or morals. Pastoral instructions, which is what you are discussing, do not fall under Papal Infallibility.

 

[Hentenza]

If the Jesuits were "forever" extinguished then how would Ellen White be their agent in creating a new religion to damage Protestantism?

Obviously the papal statement has been doctored by more of us Jesuit agents!

We're everywhere!!!

lol I went to Georgetown University. Jesuits are indeed everywhere.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by MoreCoffee

If the Jesuits were "forever" extinguished then how would Ellen White be their agent in creating a new religion to damage Protestantism?

Obviously the papal statement has been doctored by more of us Jesuit agents!

We're everywhere!!!
​

Are you a Jesuit?

lol I went to Georgetown University.

Jesuits are indeed everywhere.

Do they dress differently?

.