Jump to content
Kingdom of Adventistan

SDAs & Mary


Gregory Matthews
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think we should not acknowledge that it is even close.  The guy that wrote this would make a great catholic.  Mary has been uplifted a lot in the last couple of hundred years. Almost Co-redemptrix. Woo hoo!

I'm sure not interested in ecumenising Mary. 

She was a wonderful woman, but so was Elizabeth.

She is not the new Eve or  the Ark of the covenant.  I will however put her veneration as the Queen of Heaven as a big you betcha. no difference between those venerations. (See Jeremiah)

Mary needed a saviour as we all do. She awaits the first resurrection, as do all others who are saved.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Theophilus said:

I think we should not acknowledge that it is even close.  The guy that wrote this would make a great catholic.  Mary has been uplifted a lot in the last couple of hundred years. Almost Co-redemptrix. Woo hoo!

I'm sure not interested in ecumenising Mary. 

She was a wonderful woman, but so was Elizabeth.

She is not the new Eve or  the Ark of the covenant.  I will however put her veneration as the Queen of Heaven as a big you betcha. no difference between those venerations. (See Jeremiah)

Mary needed a saviour as we all do. She awaits the first resurrection, as do all others who are saved.

 

I don't see in Scripture that Elizabeth was referred to as the Ark of the Covenant, perhaps you could steer me in that direction as I could have missed it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Gustave, I will explain what I think (?) is going on here:

In regard to the Ark of the Covenant (AC), Seventh-day Adventists have three different views.  The Church itself has not taken an official position on those three different views:

*  One group thinks that the AC currently is in heaven.

*  On group believes that the AC is on Earth, probably in a cave somewhere outside of Jerusalem.  

*  The third group believes that there is no evidence to support any position as to the present location of the AC.

The first two groups believe that their position is supported by EGW.  The third group believes that EGW does not support any position as to the present location of the AC.

Theophilus may be implying that he believes that the AC is presently located in Haeven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

For your interest the following is what EGW said on this subject that is considered by one group:

 

‚ÄúBefore the temple was destroyed, God made known to a few of His faithful servants the fate of the temple, which was the pride of Israel, and which they regarded with idolatry, while they were sinning against God. He also revealed to them the captivity of Israel. These righteous men, just before the destruction of the temple, removed the sacred ark containing the tables of stone, and with mourning and sadness, secreted it in a cave where it was to be hid from the people of Israel, because of their sins, and was to be no more restored to them. That sacred ark is yet hid. It has never been disturbed since it was secreted.‚ÄĚ ‚ÄĒ 4SG 114, 115 (1864); 1SP 414 (1870); SR 195.

‚ÄúAmong the righteous still in Jerusalem, to whom had been made plain the divine purpose, were some who determined to place beyond the reach of ruthless hands the sacred ark containing the tables of stone on which had been traced the precepts of the Decalogue. This they did. With mourning and sadness they secreted the ark in a cave, where it was to be hidden from the people of Israel and Judah because of their sins, and was to be no more restored to them. That sacred ark is yet hidden. It has never been disturbed since it was secreted.‚ÄĚ‚ÄĒPK 453 (published in 1917); emphasis supplied.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 4:19 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

The following is a thoughtful, but challenging perspective on the possible role that Mary, the mother of Jesus, should have in our religious thinking.

https://atoday.org/is-mary-the-new-eve-and-mediatrix-the-case-for-a-protestant-mariology/

There are conservative Adventists who believe in Jesuit infiltration. This seems like evidence of it. 

In all seriousness, I looked at the article, and every point the author makes needs to be compared to the writings of Ellen White and other Adventist pioneers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Ellen White isn't even mentioned in the article, it doesn't seem like the author cares very much about traditional Adventist teachings on Mary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

And some may even believe that the Earth is flat and that the moon is made of green cheese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

And some may even believe that the Earth is flat and that the moon is made of green cheese

The article didn't even attempt to base itself in traditional Adventist teachings or the writings of Adventist pioneers. If the reason isn't Jesuit infiltration, then what is it? Is it blatant disrespect for Ellen White as a prophet or something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I expected and understand disagreement with the article.  To suggest Jesuist infiltration is to fail to understand Catholic views of Adventists.  We are not important enough for Catholics to want to infiltrate us.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/15/2022 at 9:46 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

I expected and understand disagreement with the article.  To suggest Jesuist infiltration is to fail to understand Catholic views of Adventists.  We are not important enough for Catholics to want to infiltrate us.

I don't know enough about the Jesuit infiltration theory to have an opinion on it.

What I do know is that nowhere does the article attempt to mention Ellen White and the Adventist pioneers, which automatically calls into question the motivations of the author. 

I'm sorry if I am missing some part of the article which mentions the teachings of Adventist pioneers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

That point can make for good discussion which is what this forum is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

That point can make for good discussion which is what this forum is about.

Since the article doesn't quote Ellen White and the Adventist pioneers, what did they have to say about Mary and her role in the church? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gustave, I will explain what I think (?) is going on here:

In regard to the Ark of the Covenant (AC), Seventh-day Adventists have three different views.  The Church itself has not taken an official position on those three different views:

*  One group thinks that the AC currently is in heaven.

*  On group believes that the AC is on Earth, probably in a cave somewhere outside of Jerusalem.  

*  The third group believes that there is no evidence to support any position as to the present location of the AC.

The first two groups believe that their position is supported by EGW.  The third group believes that EGW does not support any position as to the present location of the AC.

Theophilus may be implying that he believes that the AC is presently located in Haeven.

 

A while back I read an article that was posted on this forum by a couple of SDA's (possibly Professors) that were promoting a methodology of interpretation whereas heavy emphasis was placed on the original hearers (as in what would the people who actually heard or read the Scriptures Understand the Apostles to be saying). 

In the case of a Jewish person familiar with the Jewish Scriptures at the time of the New Testament the message (type & anti-type) would have been deafening. 

A devout Jew would have known that God gave order that His "Word" was to be housed in the Ark - the construction of which was essentially the best of the best (acacia wood covered with gold inside & out). Jesus is otherwise known as "THE WORD OF GOD", "AND THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH", etc., etc. 

A devout Jew would have known from the Scriptures that a Devine cloud overshadowed the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 40,35) so note would have certainly been taken when St. Luke ( 1, 35 ) said that Mary was overshadowed just like it was said of the Ark. 

A devout Jew would unequivocally know that David danced with all his might in front of the Ark so it would cause a Jews eyebrow to raise when St. Luke informs him that Elizabeth's baby while still in the womb leapt for joy when Elizabeth was standing next to Mary. David said something to the effect of HOW WAS IT that the Ark of the Lord came to him and Elizabeth says something stunningly similar to Mary. 

A devout Jew would have known that the Ark of the Covenant stayed in the house of Obed-edom for THREE MONTHS and ironically enough Mary stayed in the household of Elizabeth FOR THREE MONTHS. The place that housed the ark for three months was blessed and we have Elizabeth stating the word blessed three times. 

A devout Jew would have known that Abu Ghosh (where the ark was taken) and Elizabeth home were the same area. 

A devout Jew would have known that the Ark of the Covenant held the ten commandments, the staff of Aaron and Manna which ironically lines up with Mary being the Ark of the New Covenant with Jesus, The Word made Flesh, Jesus being the true Priest and Jesus being the bread that came down from heaven. 

St. John would have given devout Jews another jaw dropper when he wrote in the Revelation that he saw "THE ARK IN HEAVEN". No one had seen the Ark for over 500 years by this time! John is saying he saw it in heaven. Read Revelation 11 and 12 realizing that chapters and verses were added much later - this is a narrative that continues. 

Revelation 11,19: And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. add Revelation 12 to this and realize if the Child is Jesus than Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. We're told that the dragon goes on to persecute the woman's OTHER CHILDREN. I'd say that those other Children are indeed Christians and if that's true that would make Mary what? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Humble Disciple said:

I don't know enough about the Jesuit infiltration theory to have an opinion on it.

What I do know is that nowhere does the article attempt to mention Ellen White and the Adventist pioneers, which automatically calls into question the motivations of the author. 

I'm sorry if I am missing some part of the article which mentions the teachings of Adventist pioneers. 

The Adventist Pioneers were "heretics" according to the SDA Church today. 

 

"the anti-Trinitarianism that predominated among the early Adventists was not
a momentary lapse in doctrinal understanding, a lapse that Ellen White could easily correct with the stroke of a pen, but a heresy that has lasted for generations. Many children of the Adventist Movement, as Seventh-day Adventists, descended into the grave six, seven, and eight decades later believing that the Son and Holy Spirit are lesser beings.
" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll go on the record and say I thought the article was interesting, thought provoking and good. Thanks Pastor Matthews for posting it! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gustave said:

The Adventist Pioneers were "heretics" according to the SDA Church today. 

 

"the anti-Trinitarianism that predominated among the early Adventists was not
a momentary lapse in doctrinal understanding, a lapse that Ellen White could easily correct with the stroke of a pen, but a heresy that has lasted for generations. Many children of the Adventist Movement, as Seventh-day Adventists, descended into the grave six, seven, and eight decades later believing that the Son and Holy Spirit are lesser beings.
" 

Can you please quote Ellen White endorsing non-Trinitarianism? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Humble Disciple said:

Can you please quote Ellen White endorsing non-Trinitarianism? 

 

Read the article "THE PERSONALITY OF GOD" found at the link below - it starts on page 1

RH18780829-V52-10.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

 

I'll be happy to advance the dialogue after I get your comments on that article. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Humble Disciple said:

Before I read it, does the article quote Ellen White? 

Ellen White revised and edited the article according to the publication. If that isn't probative for you please let me know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Ellen White revised and edited the article according to the publication.

Must be a better source than that for what Sr. White said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GHansen said:

Must be a better source than that for what Sr. White said.

How is it that anything written in the periodicals of the SDA Church by Ellen White could be attributed to her then? Or are you saying that anything in the Sabbath Hearld directly attributed to Ellen White isn't sourced well enough to affirm she in fact wrote or directed the writing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Gustave:

*  The article that you cite was written by D. M. Canright, not Ellen White.

*  I fail to find anything that suggests that EGW revised and edited it prior to publication.  The Review at that time was edited by her husband, not her.

*  I acknowledge that at that time early SDA leaders were not Trinitarian.

*  I acknowledge that in those early days, EGW was not Trinitarian.

*  I consider Canright to be responsible for the article, not EGW.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Page 4, "THE COLORADO TENT" at the following link.

RH18780822-V52-09.pdf (adventistarchives.org)

Prior to Canright's articles on the Personality of God appearing in the Sabbath Herald - Ellen & James White assisted Canright in revising (editing) those articles. Canright was clearly anti-Trinitarian, self-identified as an anti-Trinitarian and even wrote a book stating the SDA Church (at that time was anti-Trinitarian). 

I've never seen this point raised by anyone aside from me and think the reason is simply because when I was doing my research on the Trinity issue within the early SDA Church I would read publications prior to and after the one I considered to be a smoking gun. That's how I found: 

"MRS. WRITE had-an appointment to speak in the Colorado Tent at Boulder City, on the evening of the 11th, so in the morning we took Elder Canright to the place with us, where we parted with him the morning of the 12th, he to take
the cars for Battle Creek, to be with his wife, who is reported to be rapidly failing. We parted with this dear brother with feelings of deep: regret that he leaves us before our return, and. yet we could not hold him a day from his faithful wife, who deserves his sympathy and care in her last hours. On our journey to this State, and for the first few weeks after our,arrival, we, needed his assistance, and he has acted the part of a true Christian brother. We have had many precious seasons of prayer together at the family altar, and when bowed together in the evergreen groves of the mountains. Here
we have, after prayer and careful deliberation, decided very important matters pertaining to the cause. And here, too, we have assisted him in the revision of his very valuable work entitled, " The Bible from Heaven," and his articles on the Personality of God,......"

I understand the above and other statements such as from Ellen's husband where he said that Ellen's testimonies were incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity to indicate that they (the testimonies) were indeed incompatible with the Doctrine of the Trinity. 

in addition to contemporaries of Ellen White (who actually worshipped with her privately) saying her testimonies repudiated the Trinity Mrs. White made other statements repudiating Divine Simplicity and affirming peccability  that are absolutely incompatible with the Trinity Doctrine. 

Granted, I admit that today some SDA's are Trinitarian but many if not most believe that 3 separate Being's are the godhead and that the ONLY way they are to be understood as being one is in purpose or mindset. This definition is how the Mormons understand it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...