precept
Samples "Evangelical perspectives" on Adventism makes the point that "primitive" Seventh-Day Adventism,in the wake of the "failed" Millerite movement, were far from biblically orthodox........from the standpoint of historic Christian orthodoxy, the primitive Adventist movement was a theologically cultic movement or a heretical sect...."
Samples bases his conclusion on what he calls "historic Christian orthodoxy". If by "historic christian orthodoxy", he is referring to the seven Christian churches of the book of Revelation that existed in the first century; the description "Christian Orthodoxy" could hardly be applied to these seven churches; and could only be applied if he concurred with the practiced doctrines of Baalam and as well the practiced doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which among other ungodly doctrines were being practiced by the then Christian churches of the first century. If by "historic christian church", he meant the church of the third century, chaired by the pagan emperor, Constantine, then he must as well assume the similar posture that Constantine assumed as the defacto representative of God on earth. Eusebius, bishop of Caeserea, paints the most holy and saintly picture of this pagan of emperors. Eusebius said "the empire was an image of the heavenly kingdom, its boundaries, the limit of Christendom,the emperor, the representative of divine authority in the world"[The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity"...p.70. So if Eusebius is to be taken as the true representative of early third century Christian orthodoxy, then we must also accept his dipiction of Constantine as God's "representative of divine authority in the world".
Eusebius makes the point re Constantine, that: " I stand perplexed and doubtful which way to turn, being wholly lost in wonder at the extraordinary spectacle before me. For to whatever quarter I direct my view, whether to the east or to the west, or over the whole world,or toward heaven itself, everywhere and always I see the blessed one yet administering the self-same empire....." Of Constantine, Eusebius continues: "When I raise my thoughts even to the arch of heaven, and there contemplates his thrice-blessed soul[thirty year reign]in communion with God himself, freed from every mortal and earthly vesture, and shining in a refulgent robe of light....no more connected with the fleeting periods and occupations of mortal life, but honored with an ever-blooming crown, and an immortality of endless and blessed existence....."[The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine"...by Eusebius Pamphilus...book 1; chapter 1:Fathers of the Church]
The above quotation from Eusebius Pamphilus, Father of the orthodox Christian church, must be taken as the orthodox Christian position re the emperor Constantine; and so it must; if we must avoid paying lip service to the cliche "Christian orthodoxy". And if we accept Eusebius', "already we ourselves received him as a triumphant conqueror in the assembly of God's ministers"; then like Eusebius' fellow bishops, orthodoxy was united in proclaiming the still, unbaptized pagan emperor as "God's divine authority in the world".
We therefore must conclude, ie if we agree with Eusebius and his fellow bishops, that God chose a pagan to direct the affairs of his church on earth. And if this becomes the orthodox position; then such an orthodox position is either wrong or affirmed by God himself....that is; if the then early church run by Eusebius and his other bishops, represented God!
Interestingly enough,"the blessed Constantine", postponed his baptism into the church he was the "divine authority" over, till the end of his thirtieth year of reign over the Roman empire..[Eusebius of Caeserea, on the baptism of Constantine on Constantine's death-bed....and with Constantine's address to the Christian bishops of the "orthodox Christian church"...."The time is arrived which I have longed hoped for with an earnest desire and prayer[thirty years after first professing to accept Christianity]that I might obtain the salvation of God. The hour is come in which I too may have the blessing of that seal which confers immortality; the hour in which I may receive the seal of salvation........After he had thus spoken the prelates performed the sacred ceremonies in the usual manner.....thus was Constantine the first of all sovereigns who was regenerated and perfected in a baptism..."[Eusebius of Caeserea: book 1V;Chapter LXII]
Again; during the lifetime of "The Blessed Emperor Constantine"...the blessed emperor chose not to be baptized in the very church over which God had given him "divine authority". and the years during which he ruled he killed:
"Maximian....his wife's father...A.D.310
Bassianus...his sister's husband..A.D.314
Licinius[eleven years old]..his nephew..A.D.319
Fausta...his wife....A.D.320..the year he presided over the council of Nicea.
Sopater...his former friend....A.D.321
Licinius...his sister's husband...A.D.325
Crispus...his own son...A.D.326
Dr. Lardner, in speaking of the murders committed by this Christian saint, is constrained to say: that the death of Crispus is altogether without any good excuse, so likewise is the death of the young Licinianus, who could not have been more than a little above eleven years of age..."[Bible Myths...Chapter:"Why Christianity Prospered"....p444]
The above historical narrative of the "orthodox Christian Church" of the third century, is hardly the description of any Christian church represented as "The body of Christ".
To find the true description of the Orthodox christian church one must appeal to the Holy Scriptures. And it is to this description, that the Seventh-Day Adventist church appeals.
Early Adventism is no more unorthodox than the early christian church of the disciples. The disciples, unlike Paul, believed that the keeping of the law was necessary to having a belief in Jesus as Messiah...Acts 21:20-24..."Thou seest brother how many thousands of Jews there are which believe;and they are all zealous of the law..and they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses[The Torah]saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.....Do therefore this that we say to thee..We have four men that have a vow on them...take them and purify yourself with them..and be at charges with them that they may have their heads shaved...and all may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing...BUT THOU THYSELF ALSO WALKEST ORDERLY AND KEEPEST THE LAW...Acts 21:21-24
The above scriptural narrative is a clear indication that the disciples continued in the keeping of the Mosaic law of ordinances that were clearly fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus; and as such these laws were not to be kept anymore. Paul knew that to be the fact; and he preached the true gospel of repentance that excluded the sacrificing of animals for the remission of sins...However, it is clear also from the foregoing that the disciples did not agree with Paul's understanding of the gospel of salvation...And if the early church, as run by the disciples of Jesus, had this misunderstanding of the gospel of salvation,and if it did not make them "heretical" or "cultic"; it is as well plausible that because early Adventistism espoused unscriptural doctrines, they also are neither "cultic" and or "heretical".
The so-called evangelical theology that is referred to as orthodox, appeals to the interpretation of scripture as espoused by the also so-called "evangelical scholars"...and they are many....giving rise to some three thousand different Christian evangelical denominations. It is to no one's surpise that in order to defuse the confusion which must exist in this milieu of Christian confusion, that the term orthodoxy must be defined by some self-proclaimed group claiming the authority to declare that such a group is vested with the authority to make such a definition re orthodoxy. This becomes a dangerous occupation; because what to one may be orthodox to another may not be so accepted re orthodoxy...I suggest that we again convene another council similar to the council of Nicea convened by the pagan emperor, Constantine, and this time invite the three thousand heads of these different Christian denominations, with the singular aim of defining "Christian Orthodoxy"...only then can any one definition re "Chistian Orthodoxy" be accepted by the Christian world. Until then Seventh-Day Adventist will accept only the bible's definition of "Christian Orthodoxy"...
The Bible's definition of Christian Orthodoxy is:Isa.8:20
"To the law[word of God] and the testimony[testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy..Rev.19:10] if they speak not according to this word...THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM".
("And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, 'See thou do it not': 'I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS:.....FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS IS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY" Rev.19:10)
Lest there be any confusion re the foregoing passage being taken from the old testament..do also reference the New testament in the following re the "Testimony of Jesus"..."Here is the patience of the saints..here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus"...Rev.14:12
Again; re the "Testimony of Jesus"..."and the dragon was wroth with the woman and went to make war with the remnant of her seed WHICH KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD AND HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS"...Rev.12:17
Now reference Isa.8:20...."To the law[commandmants of God] and the testimony["have the testimony of Jesus"..Rev.12:17]
My suggestion is that we all of Christendom accept this biblical definition of Christian Orthodoxy,till the synod of the three thousand different heads of the three thousand different Christian denominations can be convened.
Samples bases his conclusion on what he calls "historic Christian orthodoxy". If by "historic christian orthodoxy", he is referring to the seven Christian churches of the book of Revelation that existed in the first century; the description "Christian Orthodoxy" could hardly be applied to these seven churches; and could only be applied if he concurred with the practiced doctrines of Baalam and as well the practiced doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which among other ungodly doctrines were being practiced by the then Christian churches of the first century. If by "historic christian church", he meant the church of the third century, chaired by the pagan emperor, Constantine, then he must as well assume the similar posture that Constantine assumed as the defacto representative of God on earth. Eusebius, bishop of Caeserea, paints the most holy and saintly picture of this pagan of emperors. Eusebius said "the empire was an image of the heavenly kingdom, its boundaries, the limit of Christendom,the emperor, the representative of divine authority in the world"[The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity"...p.70. So if Eusebius is to be taken as the true representative of early third century Christian orthodoxy, then we must also accept his dipiction of Constantine as God's "representative of divine authority in the world".
Eusebius makes the point re Constantine, that: " I stand perplexed and doubtful which way to turn, being wholly lost in wonder at the extraordinary spectacle before me. For to whatever quarter I direct my view, whether to the east or to the west, or over the whole world,or toward heaven itself, everywhere and always I see the blessed one yet administering the self-same empire....." Of Constantine, Eusebius continues: "When I raise my thoughts even to the arch of heaven, and there contemplates his thrice-blessed soul[thirty year reign]in communion with God himself, freed from every mortal and earthly vesture, and shining in a refulgent robe of light....no more connected with the fleeting periods and occupations of mortal life, but honored with an ever-blooming crown, and an immortality of endless and blessed existence....."[The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine"...by Eusebius Pamphilus...book 1; chapter 1:Fathers of the Church]
The above quotation from Eusebius Pamphilus, Father of the orthodox Christian church, must be taken as the orthodox Christian position re the emperor Constantine; and so it must; if we must avoid paying lip service to the cliche "Christian orthodoxy". And if we accept Eusebius', "already we ourselves received him as a triumphant conqueror in the assembly of God's ministers"; then like Eusebius' fellow bishops, orthodoxy was united in proclaiming the still, unbaptized pagan emperor as "God's divine authority in the world".
We therefore must conclude, ie if we agree with Eusebius and his fellow bishops, that God chose a pagan to direct the affairs of his church on earth. And if this becomes the orthodox position; then such an orthodox position is either wrong or affirmed by God himself....that is; if the then early church run by Eusebius and his other bishops, represented God!
Interestingly enough,"the blessed Constantine", postponed his baptism into the church he was the "divine authority" over, till the end of his thirtieth year of reign over the Roman empire..[Eusebius of Caeserea, on the baptism of Constantine on Constantine's death-bed....and with Constantine's address to the Christian bishops of the "orthodox Christian church"...."The time is arrived which I have longed hoped for with an earnest desire and prayer[thirty years after first professing to accept Christianity]that I might obtain the salvation of God. The hour is come in which I too may have the blessing of that seal which confers immortality; the hour in which I may receive the seal of salvation........After he had thus spoken the prelates performed the sacred ceremonies in the usual manner.....thus was Constantine the first of all sovereigns who was regenerated and perfected in a baptism..."[Eusebius of Caeserea: book 1V;Chapter LXII]
Again; during the lifetime of "The Blessed Emperor Constantine"...the blessed emperor chose not to be baptized in the very church over which God had given him "divine authority". and the years during which he ruled he killed:
"Maximian....his wife's father...A.D.310
Bassianus...his sister's husband..A.D.314
Licinius[eleven years old]..his nephew..A.D.319
Fausta...his wife....A.D.320..the year he presided over the council of Nicea.
Sopater...his former friend....A.D.321
Licinius...his sister's husband...A.D.325
Crispus...his own son...A.D.326
Dr. Lardner, in speaking of the murders committed by this Christian saint, is constrained to say: that the death of Crispus is altogether without any good excuse, so likewise is the death of the young Licinianus, who could not have been more than a little above eleven years of age..."[Bible Myths...Chapter:"Why Christianity Prospered"....p444]
The above historical narrative of the "orthodox Christian Church" of the third century, is hardly the description of any Christian church represented as "The body of Christ".
To find the true description of the Orthodox christian church one must appeal to the Holy Scriptures. And it is to this description, that the Seventh-Day Adventist church appeals.
Early Adventism is no more unorthodox than the early christian church of the disciples. The disciples, unlike Paul, believed that the keeping of the law was necessary to having a belief in Jesus as Messiah...Acts 21:20-24..."Thou seest brother how many thousands of Jews there are which believe;and they are all zealous of the law..and they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses[The Torah]saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.....Do therefore this that we say to thee..We have four men that have a vow on them...take them and purify yourself with them..and be at charges with them that they may have their heads shaved...and all may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing...BUT THOU THYSELF ALSO WALKEST ORDERLY AND KEEPEST THE LAW...Acts 21:21-24
The above scriptural narrative is a clear indication that the disciples continued in the keeping of the Mosaic law of ordinances that were clearly fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus; and as such these laws were not to be kept anymore. Paul knew that to be the fact; and he preached the true gospel of repentance that excluded the sacrificing of animals for the remission of sins...However, it is clear also from the foregoing that the disciples did not agree with Paul's understanding of the gospel of salvation...And if the early church, as run by the disciples of Jesus, had this misunderstanding of the gospel of salvation,and if it did not make them "heretical" or "cultic"; it is as well plausible that because early Adventistism espoused unscriptural doctrines, they also are neither "cultic" and or "heretical".
The so-called evangelical theology that is referred to as orthodox, appeals to the interpretation of scripture as espoused by the also so-called "evangelical scholars"...and they are many....giving rise to some three thousand different Christian evangelical denominations. It is to no one's surpise that in order to defuse the confusion which must exist in this milieu of Christian confusion, that the term orthodoxy must be defined by some self-proclaimed group claiming the authority to declare that such a group is vested with the authority to make such a definition re orthodoxy. This becomes a dangerous occupation; because what to one may be orthodox to another may not be so accepted re orthodoxy...I suggest that we again convene another council similar to the council of Nicea convened by the pagan emperor, Constantine, and this time invite the three thousand heads of these different Christian denominations, with the singular aim of defining "Christian Orthodoxy"...only then can any one definition re "Chistian Orthodoxy" be accepted by the Christian world. Until then Seventh-Day Adventist will accept only the bible's definition of "Christian Orthodoxy"...
The Bible's definition of Christian Orthodoxy is:Isa.8:20
"To the law[word of God] and the testimony[testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy..Rev.19:10] if they speak not according to this word...THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM".
("And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, 'See thou do it not': 'I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS:.....FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS IS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY" Rev.19:10)
Lest there be any confusion re the foregoing passage being taken from the old testament..do also reference the New testament in the following re the "Testimony of Jesus"..."Here is the patience of the saints..here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus"...Rev.14:12
Again; re the "Testimony of Jesus"..."and the dragon was wroth with the woman and went to make war with the remnant of her seed WHICH KEEP THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD AND HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS"...Rev.12:17
Now reference Isa.8:20...."To the law[commandmants of God] and the testimony["have the testimony of Jesus"..Rev.12:17]
My suggestion is that we all of Christendom accept this biblical definition of Christian Orthodoxy,till the synod of the three thousand different heads of the three thousand different Christian denominations can be convened.