Talking With A Seventh-day Adventist

[cathoholic_anonymous]

I've recently been caught up in a series of conversations with a Seventh-Day Adventist who initially claimed that he believed me to be a Christian. (Coming after what some of the evangelicals in the Christian Union have said, this was a welcome development.) Now I don't know whether he is telling the truth or not, as he questions me on Catholic doctrine whenever we meet. My speech skills aren't all that great and he is taking advantage of that, interrupting me before I can formulate a thought or get my sentence out coherently. I got very muddled and gave several bad answers tonight. Could someone please help me? I need reliable information to support the following points:

* Christ's Kingdom is now and there will be no physical rapture (for once Catholic Answers disappointed me)
* Tradition is of equal importance to the Bible. His refutation to my explanation was, "If Tradition was that important, why didn't it get written down and put in the Bible as well?"

and to rebut this one:

* Ellen G. White was 'quite like Gerard Manley Hopkins'. He wasn't fooling me with at one - Hopkins never claimed that his imagination was anything but his imagination. Unfortunately this guy, who doesn't agree with the Seventh-Day Adventists on everything, insists that Ellen's writings were 'imaginative' as well and that doesn't lessen their spiritual truth.

Any help would be most gratefully received.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[jeffpugh]

Well, First thing I can say is Tradition is in the bible... take a browse through Peter's letters. Also, without tradition, how could we determine what was written in the old testament? There were no vowels! Also, many feasts in the Torah like the festival of booths and such had many cryptic descriptions, which turn out to be things such as blowing the Shofar. This only stuff off the top of my head, but I'm sure others could to better. Hope this helps. As for the rapture, I'll find you a website refuting that.
Pax Christi †

[Mr.Cat]

Rapture theology did not truly appear in writings of any form until the late eighteen hundreds (1800’s) to justify a theory that Christ never became Incarnate but rather He simply appeared as an angel of light. Therefore it proposes that all flesh and material things are evil thus Christ could never enter into an evil substance. Following this logic it was thought that at the end of the world that what was good to God would rise up and what was evil would remain down below like water and oil separating. To rebuttal the rapture I would ask where “ANY” of the church fathers in the first thousand years mention it, you wont find anything. For this reason and others the Church condemns rapture theology and remains true to the Christian Belief of General Judgment at the end of time. How this will happen, we are not sure...

Name one place in the four gospels that our Blessed Lord commands “anything” to be written down. Our Blessed Lord only commands that they preach to the people and when we read the scriptures we note that the Apostles are for the most part more interested in preaching rather than writing everything down, we see this a lot with Saint Paul. If tradition is not important I want you to ask how we know what books of the New Testament are valid, since there is no inspired contexts page. Further, asking who had the authority to add to the Sacred Scriptures that already existed since our Blessed Lord never commanded it in the gospels.

Good links to read up on for this...
[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html[/url]
[url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html[/url]

Also...
[url="http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/adventism/aindex.html"]http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/adventism/aindex.html[/url]

[Mateo el Feo]

A few ways to address the "Tradition" issue.

1) It is clear in passages like 2 Thess 2:14, that extra-Biblical Tradition was understood even before the New Testament was compiled.[quote]Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.[/quote]In addition, John 21:25 seems to indicate that the full extent of Our Lord's revelation wouldn't fit in all the books in the world.

2) The Council of Jerusalem, in the 15th chapter of Acts, offers a window into the New Testament Church. Through this window, we see that the Church has more authority than merely interpreting Holy Scriptures. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church released the gentiles from the command to circumcise, as required by Mosaic Law. As a side note: it's interesting that one of the main distinctives of Seventh-Day Adventists concerns another Mosaic Law: worshipping on the Sabbath vs. on the Lord's Day. The New Testament already shows Sunday worship...but I digress.

3) Taking some snippits from the Adventist Church handbook:[quote]In the early church, the elders (or bishops) held great authority.
...
The church bore responsibility for purity in doctrine and practice. It was to “test the spirits to see whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1) or, in Paul’s terms, to “test everything” and “to hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21).[/quote]
The document has a quote that seems to support individual interpretation:[quote]"Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will of the body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of individual conscience."—Review and Herald, vol. 50, No. 14, p. 106.[/quote]
Only to be immediately followed by the "inspired words" of their founder:[quote]Ellen G. White wrote in 1909: "But, when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, [b]private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body.[/b]"—Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 260.
Long before this—in 1875—Ellen G. White had written in the same vein: "The church of Christ is in constant peril. Satan is seeking to destroy the people of God, and one man’s mind, one man’s judgment, is not sufficient to be trusted. Christ would have His followers brought together in church capacity, observing order, having rules and discipline, and all subject one to another, esteeming others better than themselves."—Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 445.
In these inspired words, in the 1877 General Conference action, and in the need for well-defined rules that are requisite to good order is found a basis for this Church Manual and its rightful claim upon us all, both ministry and laity.[/quote]I think it's only natural for a "Bible-only church" to realize sooner or later that churches aren't built on personal interpretation; but by an authoritative voice. In this case, the SDAs must have decided that the authoritative interpreters were their General Conference. They've created their own psuedo-magesterium, complete with its own Traditions. At the moment, I'm tempted to think that the comment about the founder's writings being "inspired" would constitute a "capital-T" Tradition.

A final quote from their Church Manual:[quote]The church derives its authority from Christ, who is the incarnate Word, and from the Scriptures, which are the written Word.[/quote]I'm happy that they mention that the Church derives its authority from Christ. That seems to be in line with Catholic teachings. With regard to Holy Scripture, I know that Scripture doesn't call itself the "pillar and foundation of Truth", but the Church (1 Tim 3:15). In fact, making the Church's authority depend on the "written Word" begs the standard questions: how did the Church get along before the New Testament was even canonized? And, how could the Church have the authority to decide the New Testament Canon, if its own authority was based on Scripture? It's chicken-and-egg.

PS: for fun, here is the link to the SDA Church Manual (17th edition):
[url="http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_manual/Seventh-day-Adventist-Church-Manual-17th-edition.pdf"]http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_ma...7th-edition.pdf[/url]

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1192953' date='Feb 12 2007, 09:26 PM']and to rebut this one:

* Ellen G. White was 'quite like Gerard Manley Hopkins'. He wasn't fooling me with at one - Hopkins never claimed that his imagination was anything but his imagination. Unfortunately this guy, who doesn't agree with the Seventh-Day Adventists on everything, insists that Ellen's writings were 'imaginative' as well and that doesn't lessen their spiritual truth.[/quote]
I think that this quote from the SDA Church Manual is instructive:[quote]18. Gift of Prophecy

One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. [u]As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.[/u] They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)[/quote]The entire manual relies on two authorities: Holy Scriptures, and...drum roll...the writings of Ellen G. White.

As I read more and more of the manual, I realize that Ellen White really had the authority to establish real extra-Biblical "Tradition". For example:[quote]Apostasy and Rebaptism—Although apostasy clearly existed in the apostolic church (e.g., Heb. 6:4-6), Scripture does not address the question of rebaptism. [u]Ellen G. White supports rebaptism[/u] when members have fallen away in apostasy and have lived in such a manner that the faith and principles of the church have been publicly violated. Then they should, in case of reconversion and application for church membership, enter the church as in the beginning, by baptism. (See pp. 199, 207.)[/quote]The SDA reveals that it regards two real authorities, using statements like "On the basis of biblical teaching and the guidance of Ellen G. White..." We might as well ask an Adventist how he could question a Catholic who said something like, "On the basis of Biblical teaching and the guidance of the Magesterium..." The main difference is, our Magesterium is still alive.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[thessalonian]

1) Actually the Catholic Church does teach "rapture" though we don't use the term. There will be a resurrection of the body when Christ comes again. Those Christians on earth may well not undergo death but may be "raptured" directly in to heaven. We however teach that this is when Christ comes again, not before the tribulation.

2) If Christ wanted this book with everythign explictly laid out he should have had a scribe dictating all his words. In a red letter bible you can read all Christ said in less than an hour. Was that all that he taught in 3 years? I would hope not. In fact at the end of John's gospel we are told that if all he said or did was written it would fill the world with books. Why didn't Paul write more? He was alive fore 20 or so years teaching about Christ and yet he can be read in a couple of hours. The truth is not everything has to or can be written down. There is a common knowledge carried in the traditions of every Christian Church. The traditions they carry make scripture explicit for them, though they think it is explicit in itself. It is in fact not. Nowhere can the words sola scriptura or faith alone (ooops one place but it won't help them) be found. These are logical deductions based on protestant traditions of what certain passages mean.

[Mr.Cat]

Almighty God could simply make us appear before Him for General Judgment or in Heaven; or rather we could be assumed into Heaven like the Blessed Mother or taken into Heaven by Angels like in both the Old or New Testament. To call this rapture is confusing and much unfounded; at best it is a theological presumption. Although, rapture theology is the whole of what I explained not just the concept of being taken upwards for if we define it so simply you could argue that there has been raptures for some have been taken directly into Heaven either right after death or during life.

[thessalonian]

[quote]To call this rapture is confusing and much unfounded; at best it is a theological presumption. [/quote]

No it's not. The word does fit. It's not Catholic terminology but it's not heretical. What is heretical is the pre-trib notion. Catholicism is amillenial.

[Mr.Cat]

Respectfully disagreed, you are attempting to change the meaning and theology of a word that has been in use for nearly a hundred years. Stick to Catholic theology and word usage.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1194020' date='Feb 13 2007, 05:46 PM']
Respectfully disagreed, you are attempting to change the meaning and theology of a word that has been in use for nearly a hundred years. Stick to Catholic theology and word usage.
[/quote]

Once again NO I AM NOT!
By what authority do you speak? Perhaps you should send Catholic Answers and Paul Thigpen a note on the matter as well?
When we are speaking apologetics to separated brethern it is important to understand their language. I am not promoting incoporatoin of the word in to Catholic theology but when speaking with protestants it is not good to say "catholicism is against the rapture". That is simply not true. We need to understand their language in order to find where we agree and disagree. That is the purpose of my clarifying. I am following principles of ecumenical dialogue laid out by Vatican II. I stand by what I have said.

Edited February 13, 2007 by thessalonian

[phatcatholic]

check it out:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/198"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/198[/url]

[Mr.Cat]

Respectfully I believe this discussion is becoming to heated and out of the norm of discussion for this fourm...

I suggest reading [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/rapture.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/rapture.asp[/url] from Catholic Answers, since you seem to be making a plea from this viewpoint.

[quote][b]What’s the Catholic Position?[/b]
"As far as the millennium goes, we tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists. The Catholic position has thus historically been "amillennial" (as has been the majority Christian position in general, including that of the Protestant Reformers), [b][u]though Catholics do not typically use this term[/u][/b]. [u]The Church has rejected the premillennial position, sometimes called "millenarianism" (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 676)[/u]. In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism "[b][u]cannot safely be taught[/u][/b]," though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue.

With respect to the rapture, Catholics certainly believe that the event of our gathering together to be with Christ will take place, [u]though they do not generally use the word "rapture" to refer to this event [/u] (somewhat ironically, since the term "rapture" is derived from the text of the Latin Vulgate of 1 Thess. 4:17—"we will be caught up," [Latin: rapiemur])."
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/rapture.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/rapture.asp[/url][/quote]Rapture Theology in general in use by Protestants whom strongly advocate it is not compatible with Catholic theology and the Church has never proposed such a doctrinal stance, thus it is your theological presumption likewise using a phrase that Catholic Answers admits is not native to Catholic Theology.

Although to end debate between the two of us let us yeild to Catholic Answers and admit conditional agreement that while there is similar theology the technical aspects of it is debatable because the Church has never defined anything on this subject. ...

Edited February 14, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[thessalonian]

If this were the theology section I would agree with you regarding the language of the Church in matters regarding the end times. It is apologetics and in apologetics which is a branch of evangelization, we are to learn the culture and language (protestants have a different language) of those we are trying to evangelize in order to help them understand Catholicism. We are also to look for the strands of truth in what they believe and to start there in dialogue with them. I have not said that all of protestant rapture theology is correct. The pre-trib and post trib thinkers are not correct and the Church has in fact said this quite clearly. But the idea of rapture, i.e. the taking up of the body in to heaven is quite consistent with Church teaching and that is what I have been contending.

By the way, your doing a rather good job of broad brushing. Not all protestants are pre-trib. Some are post trib, no trib, and amillenial as we are. The Catholic Church has in fact spoken on this and pre-trib is condemned in the early councils. Hank Hanagraph for one has a national radio program and is quite "Catholic" in his theology in this area.

This thread is about talking to a protestant about his beliefs and helping him to understand ours. I stand by what I have said.

Edited February 14, 2007 by thessalonian

[cathoholic_anonymous]

Thank you all for your replies.

The person I'm talking to believes in pre-tribulation rapture. He also believes in the doctrine of 'soul sleep', which I did my best to refute. Talking to him isn't easy as he can make some very snide comments. I think I will just avoid him from now on.

[thessalonian]

[quote]Respectfully I believe this discussion is becoming to heated and out of the norm of discussion for this fourm...[/quote]

Only if you are. Catholics are not supposed to be debating Catholics on this board but you happen to have started this, questioning my orthodoxy and attacking my attempts to be helpful in having a dialogue with Protestants. I will defend my position and stand by it.

[quote]I suggest reading [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/rapture.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/rapture.asp[/url] from Catholic Answers, since you seem to be making a plea from this viewpoint.[/quote]

I've read it and have not contradicted it or Catholic theology in any way.

[quote]Rapture Theology in general in use by Protestants whom strongly advocate it is not compatible with Catholic theology and the Church has never proposed such a doctrinal stance, thus it is your theological presumption likewise using a phrase that Catholic Answers admits is not native to Catholic Theology.[/quote]

What theological presumption? What doctrinal stance are you talking about? What are you talking about? Catholic answers says though the Church does not use amillenialism as a term it is in general doctrinally consistent with it. They also say most protestants are doctrinally consistent with it. More broad brushing by you.

[quote]Although to end debate between the two of us let us yeild to Catholic Answers and admit conditional agreement that while there is similar theology the technical aspects of it is debatable because the Church has never defined anything on this subject. ...
[/quote]

Yes it has defined things on the subject. It says premill is unorthodox. It has not dogmatically proclaimed amillenialism but the teachings are consistent with it. Catholic Answers says this. I agree with what Catholic Answers has said. Seems it is you that does not.

I have been on this board a LONG time and have provided helpful answers to many in this forum. Seems you are here to show people how much you know with little experience in dialoging with Protestants from what I can tell. You can ask anyone on this board about my orthodoxy. I don't take such assucsations lightly. If you are going to come on this board attacking Catholics when there is absolutely nothing wrong with my posts your going to get slapped by the mods very soon. If you are here to respectfully discuss you will fare much better. Which is it going to be.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Lil Red