Do you adhere to the following...

The Seventh-day Adventist Church holds a unique system of eschatological (or end-times) beliefs. Adventist eschatology, which is based on a historicist interpretation of prophecy, is characterised principally by the premillennial Second Coming of Christ. Traditionally, the church has taught that the Second Coming will be preceded by a global crisis with the Sabbath as a central issue. At Jesus' return, the righteous will be taken to heaven for one thousand years. After the millennium the unsaved will be punished by annihilation while the saved will live on a recreated Earth for eternity.
The foremost sources are the biblical books of Daniel and Revelation. Jesus' statements in Matthew 24 for instance, as well as many other Bible verses are also used. The classic Adventist commentary on the end-times was Uriah Smith's Daniel and the Revelation. The writings of Ellen G. White have also been highly influential, particularly the last part of her book The Great Controversy. "Prophecy seminars", developed since the mid-20th century, have been a key popular source. (Wikipedia)


Just curious brakelite?

Protestants believe in grace through faith alone.

Catholics believe in grace through faith and submission the their churches teachings on sacrements and rites and works merit, other than grace merit.
So its faith/works.

As Paul would put it, "another Gospel" other than what he preached.

Found this which might give you a brief overview. Had some other papers on this, haven't been able to find it. But a quick search provided me the below. Hope it helps. Doesn't deal with the current view which is a paper all by its self. Search Mary sightings. You'll be surprised. You are correct in your other statement that it sounds like a cult. Very much in the fabric of RCC. Has papal support.
--------------------------------------------------------------

The commonly held teachings of Mariology can be derived from her function as Mother of God (Theotokos), a term first used around 320 and formally approved by the Council of Ephesus in 431. Mariologists argue that Mary, who enabled God the Savior to be born, has a position more exalted than any other creature. She is the Queen of Heaven. Moreover, since her motherhood was indispensable to God's redemptive activity, Mary is essential to the final, spiritual perfection of every creature. Accordingly, although she was not involved in their original physical creation, Mary is, in this ultimate sense, the Mother of God's Creatures. This includes being Mother of Humans, a title found in Ambrose but popularized around 1100, and Mother of Angels, a term first found in the thirteenth century.

Mary's involvement in salvation makes her co-redemptrix along with Christ. Irenaeus contrasted Eve's disobedience, which brought humanity's downfall, with Mary's obedience, which "became the cause of salvation both for herself and the human race." Beginning in the twelfth century references appear to her redemptive work not only in Christ's birth but also at the cross. Most Mariologists insist on both. While Jesus offered his sinless person to appease God's wrath, Mary, whose will was perfectly harmonious with his, offered her prayers. Both atoned for our sins, although Christ's satisfaction was primary and wholly sufficient. Mary's mediatory role includes her present intercession for sinners. This was seldom mentioned before the twelfth century, when popular piety regarded Mary as more lenient than her Son, the Judge.

Mary's exalted role implies Mariological assertions about her life. If Mary had ever been stained by sin, she would have been God's enemy and unfit to bear him. Consequently, she must have been "immaculate" (wholly free from any sin) from the instant she was conceived. The immaculate conception, hotly debated in the Middle Ages and early modern era, was opposed by Thomas Aquinas and his followers. But in 1854 Pius IX declared it an official dogma.

Mary's immaculate conception implies that she possessed a "fullness of grace" from the first instant. Further, she was immune to the slightest sin throughout her life. Mariologists also stress Mary's perpetual virginity. This includes, first, her virginity in partu: that Jesus was born without opening any part of her body; second, that she remained a virgin throughout her life. Though Mary's perpetual virginity, and especially her sinlessness, were challenged by some early fathers, they were generally accepted by Augustine's time. Proponents of perpetual virginity often assumed that anything else would contradict her purity. Finally, Mariologists teach that after her death Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. No clear reference to the assumption of Mary appears before the sixth century. It was not generally accepted until the thirteenth and was promulgated by Pius XII in 1950.

Protestants have criticized Mariology because many assertions apparently lack biblical foundation. Scripture does not mention her immaculate conception or assumption. Her perpetual virginity is challenged by references to Jesus' sisters and brothers (Mark 3:31; 6:3; John 2:12; 7:1 - 10; Acts 1:14; Gal. 1:19; Mariologists claim they were cousins). Moreover, the Gospels do not present Mary unambiguously as sinless and in continuous accord with Christ's will. Protestants have also argued that Mariology exaggerates the contribution that any human can make to divine redemption. Luther and Calvin saw Mary as a human who in herself was nothing; she was enabled to bear Christ wholly through God's grace. Conservative Protestants argue that most Mariological excesses, her roles as Mother of God's Creatures, co - redemptrix, intercessor; her immaculate conception; and her "fullness of grace", spring from overestimating the human role in redemption, which was perhaps already implied by Irenaeus. This ancient theological issue may be the most fundamental one surrounding Mariology.
- T.N. Finger, Elwell Evangelical Dictionary

Thanks for the info, why do cults associated with the Bible always, always, corrupt the scriptures.

Now, I have to ask you Christ4Ever are you associated with the Seventh Day Adventists?

We must; all of us continue to share if we're aware of the pitfalls that others may not see or even realize are there in a deceived world. Hope outside of Jesus is no hope at all.

No I'm not associated with the Seventh Day Adventists, even though as a child I remember visiting one of their churches in NYC. Why do you ask Brother?

Some of the posts in this thread sound like SDA eschatology.

All protestant churches fall under the spell of the antichrist.

All protestant churches join up with the Catholic Church.

The pope is the antichrist, Sunday worship is enforced.

Guess which remnant church is persecuted? The Seventh Day Adventists.

Sure appears that way.

Dear David777
Keep in mind that brother brakelite is doing this as a study, which if flawed, will be revealed, and as in any study should be questioned, to ascertain to its scriptural validity. So to attribute it to this or that instead of on its own merits would be doing an injustice to a brother in Christ Jesus. However, if you feel he may have some ulterior motive, I’m sure if you were to ask him, he would more than happy to reply. Unless you believe him to be something other than what he appears to be? Ahhh to be able to see the heart of a person and know in truth!

Sorry brother but the smilies are not to cast light of your observation, but they just seemed to fit to what I was writing!

The only reason I put my two cents so to speak, or pence, or whatever monetary domination one may use, is that I had researched Mariology last year for a class held at my church (Pentecostal), so figured I could provide the information to you on its origins.

Sad that a major denomination supports and promotes this (Mariology) from the top (Popes) thereby deceiving many who have placed their trust in him instead of the Word of God.

YBIC
C4E

Yes my brother, there does seem to be some serious flaws.

That is why I asked him about his affiliation with the SDA.

I will wait for his reply.

Sorry that I had to ask you Christ4Ever, I was trying to discover just who was who.

Please accept my apology Christ4Ever.

Yours absolutely in Christ for ever and ever.

Dear Brother David777,
No apology necessary brother, yet it is accepted willingly. Why should I feel anything but love towards a brother in Christ Jesus? This same Love that our Lord has showered on you, brakelite, me and all who call Him Savior, does and must override the disagreements we may have when examining scripture. Even the apostles had their disagreements, yet always loved each other. We are a family and what family doesn't have their disagreements? At least until that day of His return!

Too often we beat each other with the letter of the law and forget about the spirit of it. We need to remember that Love can be communicated even when we are dotting "i's" or crossing "t's" in our postings. That’s why I will reread a post of mines 3, 4 or more times if necessary so that the heat of my response becomes tempered, by remembering who I’m communicating with; brothers & sisters in Christ Jesus or of greater importance to non-believers. Not being perfect (yet), I don’t always do this, and regret it later for not having taken my time and greater care in choosing my words.

Always remember because you see serious flaws, communicating them constructively and in love provides an avenue by which the Holy Spirit may help us all whether communicator or recipient, come to a greater understanding of His Word. I have to post this somewhere above my PC to remind myself of this very thing from time to time
As always my brother
YBIC
C4E

Yes, that pretty well sums it up, although I would add one or two more for a fuller picture. I would disagree however with the term "unique". The historicist system of Biblical understanding regarding prophecy had been around since Paul. And most of the more Biblically centered scholars of ages past and the reformers were historicists. And as for the uniqueness of SDA eschatology, the whole goal of this thread was intended to point out that far from being unique, the reformers held steadfastly to the same view, and paid for it with their lives. So the question still remains, and very few in here have been game enough to answer...were they right? Because if you are game enough to claim they were wrong, then you better have some pretty good evidence to back up your claim considering the weight of Biblical evidence that stands against you. To deny the truth as it is revealed is to deny the author of it.
While I did enjoy reading Uriah Smiths book, I do not use it as a reference or study guide. Nor for that matter E G White's books. You may or may not have noticed that throughout this thread I have not once referred to any other source material except for historical purposes other than the Bible. It is in fact a generally misunderstood point that Adventism can be defended quite adequately without the help of E G White, and more than that, she herself stated categorically that the Bible and the Bible only is the foundation and source for all doctrine and faith.
Surprised it took you so long to 'out' me lol.