The Blending of American Roman Catholicism and Protestantism
by Herb Douglass
While working on another writing assignment, I found several articles that suddenly gave me some focus for this blog. They related to certain paragraphs written years ago that I and others had a difficult time figuring out how they could ever become reality, especially in the United States.
Such paragraphs as: “The wide diversity of belief in the Protestant churches is regarded by many as decisive proof that no effort to secure a forced uniformity can ever be made. But there has been for years, in churches of the Protestant faith, a strong and growing sentiment in favor of a union based upon common points of doctrine. To secure such a union, the discussion of subjects upon which all were not agreed — however important they might be from a Bible standpoint — must necessarily be waived.
“When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.“ The Great Controversy, p 444-445.
Summary:
- Centuries of history have proved that unity on doctrine is most improbable.
- In recent years a dramatic change is occurring in that Protestant churches can at least agree on “common point of doctrine.”
- To achieve this unity, subjects on which they do not agree will be waived.
- This new vision is shared by both Protestants and Catholics.
- The time will come when Protestants and Catholics, now unified on ‘common points of doctrine,’ will seek governmental support of their wishes, leading to ‘civil penalties’ upon dissenters.
I had recently pulled an article by Greg Hamilton that he wrote in the Pacific Union Gleaner, March 2006. In this article, among other observations, he raised some important questions:
Adventists support the United States Constitution which provides safeguards protecting freedom of religion regardless of majority consensus or sentiment. These safeguards are in danger of being removed 'by Catholic and evangelical zealots' (who are roughly 60 percent of U.S.A. voters) who seek government action in the interest of promoting the commonly shared beliefs in abortion, traditional family and Sunday sacredness, etc.
- Adventists believe that while Christians should be at the forefront in promoting Bible-based moral values, they should speak out against judicial or legislative efforts to mandate or define the human relationship to God and worship as contained in the first four commandments.
- Pope Benedict XVI has publicly stated that Christians in America, and most specifically Catholics, are now in a position to dramatically influence U.S. domestic and foreign policy to reflect the divine commands of God. For the first time, Catholic Supreme Court justices are in the majority.
Bible prophecies have been given to us so we will not be deceived by otherwise sincere men and women who seek through traditional moral, social and political methods to save mankind by establishing what they believe to be Christ’s millennial kingdom on earth. (We call that “dominionism.”) Pretty good for starters, but Scriptures tell us that His followers will spend the Millennium in heaven!
Then I put alongside that article another on the same subject from the Roman Catholic viewpoint of how Roman Catholics and Protestants are now enjoying a new platform of common cause: The End of American Catholicism? by Pierre Hegy in America, May 1, 1993.
The author compared an earlier article also titled, The End of American Catholicism? written in 1972 by William C. McCready and Andrew M. Greeley who had raised the question of the future of American Catholicism by comparing Catholic church attendance and beliefs in 1963 and 1972.
Then, for the period 1972-1990, Hegy made the same survey, with the same order as the 1963 survey. In summary, verifying their numbers, but with much greater spreads: the drop in church attendance but more ominously, the slippage in the young dropping much faster, having levels that are similar to Protestants.
In morality areas, Catholics who condemned premarital sex dropped from 38 percent in 1972 to 18 percent in 1988-90, while approval went from 21 percent to 44 percent — nearly double. (Protestants in 1971, largely condemned premarital sex as always wrong, but this decreased to 34 percent in 1988-90. Abortion produced similar numbers.) All of which reminded the researchers to note the social structure that prevailed for many years, the hierarchical model and the theology of the Council of Trent, are being increasingly rejected by the majority of Catholics.
This led Hegy to ask, “Who is the church?” Then he answered, “In simple terms, it is not primarily the ‘teaching church,’ nor the ‘thinking church,’ nor the ‘evangelical church’ but a mix of all three.
Then he hooked up with Cassius Yuhaus in The Catholic and American Culture, (1990) where two cultural models in USA Catholicism were distinguished:
- The teaching, immigrant model (traditional)
- The evangelical model — the most dynamic and influential…[being] centered on the Scripture and the person of Jesus. According to Yuhaus, as well as survey data, doctrinal formulas and church documents are seen as less significant than Scripture and personal piety. The question is not so much, ‘what does the church teach?’ as ‘what would Jesus do?’
The ‘evangelical model’ offers an alternative to the conservative-liberal dichotomy, to the extent that it emphasizes the empowerment of all through Scripture. In this perspective, church attendance and personal beliefs can only be a matter of choice and maturity, for Catholics as well as for Protestants. Presto! The Protestant-Catholic differential will likely disappear!
Of course, it all depends on what kind of ‘empowerment’ we are talking about. How exactly are the Scriptures being used? In both Protestant and Catholic circles we have seen the rise of what has been called the ‘social gospel,’like feminism, liberation theology, and the fight for ‘social justice,’ all in the interest of working on ‘common points of agreement.’
I have seen it happening before my eyes in the last 50 years! Who would have thought it? Both Protestants and Catholics are using the Scriptures selectively to bless their ‘common points of agreement.’ No wonder we see the picture of a world at last finding its mission of setting up the kingdom of God on earth. It seems so logical and doable.
No more Protestant-Catholic tension! All that is for the trash bin!
It is way more then that Herb, We have Islamists preaching social Justice, such as the Imam offering Friday Prayers for occupy Wall Street last week. And the communists declare their allegeince to social justice as well. Why I even found social justice praised by the modern Nazi party, So what do all these revolutionaries, anarchists. communists. progressives and socialists have in common? They want a new economic order, "death to capitalism death to America", ( that last actually a quote from a recent rally in Iran supporting the occupy wall street movement). So yes you are on to something Herb. But much broader and more dangerous then the 19th century expectations of Ellen White. We do ourselves no favors by clinging to her through the glass darkly view.
What to EGW seemed certain and imminent when written, do not necessarily apply 100 years later. There are rapid changes as Ron mentions above: The anti-catholic sentiment that was very prevalent in the early 19th century has changed to fear of the "Muslim hordes" that soon will enact Sharia law. Times and instituions change and failure to recognize those may lead one to adopting old ideas and beliefs that have been preempted by newer problems, completely unimagined when those warnings were written.
I know Herb does not use this blog to promote his books, but if you were to get a copy of the recently published Red Alert:… Interpreting Todays Headlines in the Light of Prophecy… read chapter 1. There is some very compelling facts to take into consideration as to how this world could easily, and for the most part is on its way to such a place as described in the GC. And the rest of the book just enlarges the fact finding basis for what he's proposed here.
We may not necessarily agree with the premise of what is said… but scoffing has never led to a peaceful / happy conclusion… Watch and pray.
Herb,
If you want to get into prophecy do some quick calculations on how many years it was between the rise of Islam (Mohammed) and its near demise around 1798! Of course one could equally postulate that such a wounding has or is being healed, and much of the world is wondering after it!
Cheers
I am hearing from the above statements that the Papal leadership is being extended to the Muslims. I can attest that this is present in Judaism as well. I entered a Jewish worship center a few years ago and found a picture of the nation of Israel breaking off and making its way to Heaven. All the while being led by the Pope. Just think of other ramifications. Interesting how Jesus used helps to the salvation of others and how social justice is being perverted to push World agenda.
And yet the reality is Catholics are suffering in the US today at the hands of state actions depriving them of religious liberty. State mandates on abortion, birth control, insurance coverage, gay adoption, gay marriage, are forcing the closure of Catholic hospitals and adoption agencies, and forcing individual Catholics to choose between their job and their faith. The US bishops are so concerned they've established a new committee on religious liberty; the chairman, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, CT, testified to a House subcommittee yesterday. You may read his testimony here: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/upload/lori-testimony-on-religious-freedom-2011-10-26.pdf
Worth reading.
Also this by an old acquaintance of mine, Jose Gomez, Archbishop of Los Angeles: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/10/defending-our-first-freedom
Those noting the somewhat quiet overtures by Catholic leaders with Muslim leaders are on track. I noted that too in the book that Laffal mentioned. Remember, the more Roman Catholicism changes, the more it remains the same. IMO, we must keep our eyes on the Big Picture rather than the ebb and flow of the nightly news. Sometimes, it helps to live a few decades before the lights come on and see that those prescient pages in The Great Controversy have not missed yet–and increasingly more relevant.
OK, Herb, identifies two trends here: the one whereby the “constitutional safeguards protecting freedom of religion regardless of majority consensus or sentiment…[are] in danger of being removed by…[voters] who seek government action in the interest of promoting the commonly shared beliefs [about] abortion, traditional family and Sunday sacredness, etc.,” and the other wherein within “both Protestant and Catholic circles we have seen the rise of…[movements] ‘like feminism, liberation theology, and the fight for ‘social justice,’ all in the interest of ‘common points of agreement.’”
In either trend we can discern the inevitable fulfillment of bible prophecy; with one trend possibly enveloping the other, in realignment. However the GC narrative clearly delineates which trend will be in ascendancy or in a dominant posture in the United States.
The question is whether the GC narrative and exegesis is inspired. I say “yes.”
Elaine said, What EGW said was certain and immenent when written, do not necessarily apply 100 years later…Times and instituions change and failure to recognize those may lead one to adopting old ideas and beliefs that have been preempted by newer problems, completely unimagined when those warnings were written." My sentiments exactly. If Satan is going to deceive if possible the very elect, then why would he follow a script so defined in GC? My guess is he will use something and from a direction that the SDA event watchers are least expecting.
The article describing the protestant side mentions increased efforts to bring government action to the Abortion and Sexual morality issues. The second article, giving the catholic side, mentions a steady decrease of catholics who disapprove of Abortion and Sexual morality rules. What am I missing here? The two groups appear to be moving in opposing directions in these questions, and that indicates movement towards an union how?
The RC members are moving in a different direction to their church, as are the members of Protestant churches. The RC church still agrees 100% with conservative Protestant churches on these issues. That has not stopped the percentage of those opposing abortion, homosexuality, sex before marriage, etc declining in both groups. It is possible that both RC and Protestant church leaders could see using secular power as a way not only of imposing 'Christian' morality on unbelievers, but also on believers who have 'wandered' from the churches' position.
But presumably they would need the full support of their members to make it happen (democracy being power thorugh the majority), thus reducing the chances it will take place with every passing year.
I think sometimes we look through a glass darkly or a telescope backwards. I do not want to discount EGW prophecies entirely. But I believe there is altogether too much crowing about some present world events by many SDA's, who read some broad statement of hers written over 100 years ago and insist she predicted it.
Shooting a hole in the side of a barn and then drawing a target around it afterwards, does not make one a crack shot.
Thomas has zeroed in on the problem with Herb's analysis. Herb draws from different belief systems and trends that push and pull in different directions to reach a conclusion that they are all moving in one direction.
The Vatican, liberal protestants, and secularists prefer collectivism. They are united around the theme of one world government to enforce an equitable distribution of resources and protect the environment, and eliminate war, famine, etc. Evangelical protestants, on the other hand, unite around the theme of returning political power to individuals and their local political bodies so that they will be free to promote fundamental moral values of private property rights, personal freedom, and individual responsibility. They are deeply distrustful of concentrating political power in an all-powerful federal government – much more so a world government.
As these opposing philosophies struggle for power and dominance, my crystal ball has a hard time seeing evangelical protestants and American conservative Catholics, who are committed to founding principles, joining hands with the liberal forces that are agitating for a regulatory world body governed by the rule of "wise men" rather than the rule of law.
I certainly agree with Herb that we are in an end time, and that we seem to be on the brink of a Biblical apocalypse. I just don't think he's put the dots together that demonstrate how evangelical protestantism and Catholicism are working in unity to vindicate the SDA apocalyptic narrative. The powerful forces of secularism and Islam are absent from the SDA narrative, unless of course one wants to categorize secularism as "spiritualism" – not an unreasonable inference.
Most of the dots are before our eyes. But I believe it is delusional for us to think we can connect all those dots in the right order, just as it was delusional for Jews, when Christ first appeared, to think that they could connect all the dots in the right order. If we don't keep ourselves open to letting God, instead of our cherished, self-promoting narratives connect the dots, we are liable to find ourselves, as did the First Century Jewish leaders, on the wrong side.
Well said. The voice of reason speaks amidst the reductionist arguments. Please keep showing us the other side of the coin. It may not be as exciting but it helps us keep our feet on the ground.
Nathan,
Here’s a interesting post; in that I am in complete agreement with the concluding sentence—while disagreeing with most, though not all, of that which preceded it. How is that possible?
I agree (perhaps?) with (you and) Herb that we are in the end time (as possibly opposed to your “an end time”), and that we are (as opposed to your “seem to be…”) on the brink of the (as opposed to your “a”) Biblical apocalypse.
We are also in agreement that “most of the dots are before our eyes.” Where we part, of course, is that it appears clear that much of the post was comprised of commentary related to a private “cherished…narrative;” as opposed to tracing the lines already provided by the previously connected prophesied dots of “the SDA narrative.”
Consistently the SDA denomination has stood in unity with American Zionists, socialists, communists and American atheists on the nature of the relationship of Christianity and American governance, a position oppose by many of its pastors. It is way past time for a bed-check.
At the same time the SDA General Conference has urged its members to support anti-smoking laws on a national level, and supported "civil rights" rather than "human rights" during the 1960's-70's along with apostate American Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. The SDA church remains "statist" in its views of governmental forms and maintains the socialists views of modernity forgetting that God is the giver of all human "rights", not the state. The Adventist position on the relationship of "church and state" is shallow and lacks continuity and reason.
Never mind what the church has done in the past; in what way is the SDA Church's current position on the separation of church and state "shallow and lacks continuity and reason?" You want more blending of church and state? Hostility toward the church on the part of the state?
In this context, I would like to take a crack at answering Tom’s question “If Satan is going to deceive if possible the very elect, then why would he follow a script so defined in GC?”…and addressing his supposition that “he will use something and from a direction that the SDA event watchers are least expecting.”
First off, the operative phrase is “if [it were] possible” which means, or strongly implies, that it is (or will) not be possible to deceive the very elect. This of course is itself a prophecy, the purpose of which—as are all prophecies (and prophets)—is to let God’s people “in” on precisely what will happen; so that they will not in any way be deceived. Amos 3:7, Revelation 22:6
The way it is possible to be deceived anyway, even while Satan is following the script verbatim, is to ignore—and/or reject—the prophetic utterances, and choose to look elsewhere; perhaps for reasons of political or economic convenience, or for whatever reason.
Why would satan choose to operate the way he has been expected to? If an invader meets all our expectations, we would be ready for him, wouldn't we?
Just as Jesus said he would come "as a thief in the night." Our expectations should not focus on either satan or Jesus' exact plans. We do not know either, but apparently love to speculate.
Elaine,
Have you thought that he just might not be able to help himself.
Who just "might not be able to help himself" Satan or God?
Elaine,
Satan!
This was clearly demonstrated when he became so infuriated that he insighted the Jews to crucify Christ, and in so doing he essentially destroyed himself. Why would he do something like that? Sin!!! Romans 7:14-23 tell us that because of sin, even when we want to do the right thing we don't, and when we don't want to do the wrong thing we do. Why? Sin!!!
The GC theme as described as scripted will only prove out this point at the end of the day. As I have been saying… all we can do is wait and see…
Neither God nor the devil can “help” themselves, Elaine. Each is who each is, for better or worse.
God, who is love, cannot do otherwise. (My father preached a sermon along those lines years ago.) God cannot lie; while Satan invented lying.
God is all powerful and all knowing. Satan cannot turn God into a liar, nor can he outsmart or outmaneuver Him. And, because the truth is not in Satan, he literally cannot help but lie.
Laffal’s point is well taken and demonstrates the point perfectly. The "script" of Christ’s incarnation and death was followed without an iota of variance. This pattern, or syndrome, is repeating itself with impeccable Divine precision. What is prophesied will come to pass, no matter how familiar Satan is with "the script." This is the result of criminal insanity; otherwise referred to as iniquity.
The script is seen perfectly in hindsight, Stephen. But there is much in the O.T. that supported the script that the Jewish leaders had written. You have to unpack a lot of vague symbolism to think Christ's first advent should have been clear to the Jewish leaders. Their problem was that they had put God in their prophetic box, just as Adventists have put God in a prophetic box. The one thing that is constant and predictable about the divine intersection with human experience is that God always surprises. Beware of those who claim to have a script!
Nathan,
What threw the Jewish leaders “off” concerning the prophecies of Messiah was, in large measure, due to their desire for temporal, cultural, and political power; even hegemony.
Clearly, the prophecies concerning Messiah were not lost on those magi from the East, upon whom the spirit of prophecy descended.
The facts are that history is repeating; and that cultural pride can obfuscate prophecy. Any “prophetic box” is for our benefit. It is the reason why “we” exist. We have not put God in any box. He provided the prophetic framework Himself.
Had the Jewish leaders no temporal, cultural, or political ambition or designs, the "prophetic box” could have served them quite well. The same might be said of “us.”
It is becoming clearer how Satan will deceive as many as possible. He uses a different method for the world than he does for the church. There is sometimes a lot of emphasis in the SDA Church on Sunday laws. But SDA's won't be deceived by Sunday laws. If the deceptions are so strong that they would, if possible, deceive the elect, they would have to be subtle, and not so easily detected. This is happening before our very eyes and is not recognized by many in the church. The inroads of eastern mysticism, under the guise of "spiritual formation," "contemplative prayer," "centering prayer," and so on, are well documented. Many people embrace them without a second thought. Those who object are perceived to be against prayer, or are labeled as divisive. That's only one area where subtle deception is affecting many. Ellen White spoke of the "alpha and omega" of apostasy. The alpha was pantheism, and it deceived many. The omega could be of a similar nature.
As for Catholics suffering in the US; I find that notion almost comical. A majority of the Supreme Court justices are Catholic. In fact, there are currently no Protestant Supreme Court justices. 50 years ago that could have never happened. Now, few eyebrows are raised. Those who deny that Ellen White was the Lord's messenger may be puzzled to know how she accurately predicted, more than a century ago, that Roman Catholicism would regain its popularity to such a great extent. And she wrote during a time when anti-Catholic bigotry was alive and well.
HB: Deceiving the elect could mean anything including political leanings that are stronger than our faith. When you are so sure about spiritual disciplines being "of Satan" I need to ask how it is that those practicing said disciplines are more Christlike, caring, and loving than most of us. Can a house be divided against itself?
God is the Alpha and Omega. ( I don't understand this other definition) I find the terminology as something a few people jumped on as a kind of conspirational theory. I think it is another of those "bearing false witness" testimonies. One could also say that Satan is attacking these practices because he doesn't want us closer to Jesus through prayer and meditation.
Pantheism is belief that we are gods and God is in everything rather than a separate Creator being. I don't find Pantheism in the Christian practice of the disciplines.
I have a few contentions with this post. You first suggest that Catholics and Protestants are uniting under the banner of conservative activism and then suggest they are uniting under the banner of liberal activism. Of course both of these are likely true, but that undermines the evidence that everybody is unifying for a one world order.
I'm also not sure what you're getting at concerning our Catholic Supreme Court justices. If you're suggesting that it means anti – Catholic bigotry has greatly subsided meaning that a future alliance is now more feasible then you have a point. However, if you're suggesting that we are already in trouble because there are Catholics in high places then you're just being intellectually lazy. There is no evidence that our Catholic Justices are plotting to undermine the Constitution or establish Catholic law. Roberts and Alito, I think, are both minimalists with a high regard for Staire Decisis and a desire to see the Court's role limited. Thomas and Scalia are both originalists deeply committed to upholding the constitution's original meaning (I think it would be possible to do this with a more liberal orientation as the law professor Akhil Amer suggests, but I digress…). I don't know what Kennedy's philosophy is, but I know of no evidence that he is plotting the rise of Catholic power. Of course, anything's possible, but that doesn't make it true. Suggesting conspiratorial plots without evidence runs a little too close "bearing false witness" for my comfort.
All of this underlines what I think has been a problem in Adventist eschatological thinking. It's not the prophecies I have a problem with, but the way in which they are defended. If we truly believe that the Bible prophesies Catholicism as the beast, then that should be enough. We should be comfortable with elements of current events that don't quite add up and rest in the fact that God sees behind the curtain. Instead we often make fools out of ourselves twisting and cherry – picking the news to make it support our view. Instead of trusting that an Omniscient God can see behind the curtain, we claim to see behind it ourselves. At its' best this action is divisive and makes appear a bit crazy, at its worst we "bear false witness."
John Mark,
Being considered a minimalist or having a high regard for precedence are obviously a couple of those “in the eye of the beholder” things. Minimalism is relative to what it is that is being considered, as is the regard for court precedence.
If it is something that so-called minimalists desire to see overturned, they will become activists. If precedent is not to their liking, they will ignore it.
This is no doubt true, but unless you're God, you have to go by what someone says to determine their motives. We can't peer into their hearts. Is there anything in the actions of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, or Kennedy that point to a desire to establish Papal rule? I have been a bit of a Constitutional law junky and I know of no such evidence.
There are, as you know, a few Supreme Court justices—of whom Scalia and Thomas are certainly numbered— who have a view of the Establishment Clause which has been categorized or classified as accommodationist; as opposed to that of a separationist view.
The accommodationist view generally supports accommodations for official collaborative/cooperative religion and government (i.e. church and state), functions, activities, funding, and ceremonies; whereas the separationist view holds, like Jefferson, that the Establishment Clause erects “a wall of separation of between Church and State.”
As you may know (speaking of precedent), as a result of the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman decision, the Court has applied this three-step “Lemon Test” to challenged legislation and activity: 1) does it have a legitimate secular legislative purpose?, 2) does its primary effect either advance or inhibit religion, and 3) does it excessively entangle the government with religion (or presumably vice versa). The second of this three-pronged approach is especially important to those of us who happen to subscribe to the historical prophetic SDA take on eventual eschatological Constitutional contradictions.
Justice Scalia is, of course, on record as having compared the Lemon Test to a “ghoul in a late-night horror movie” that “stalks” American Establishment Clause jurisprudence; stating that it is a “strange notion” that the same Constitution which through its Free Exercise Clause “gives religion in general preferential treatment forbids endorsement of religion in general.”
As you are aware, there have been a number of cases (e.g., Board of Education v. Grumet, Zobrest v. Catalina Foothill Schools District, Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union, Lee v. Weisman, and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe) in the past two decades in which the court has had opportunity to apply the Lemon Test to the Establishment Clause; with Scalia and Thomas having both largely voted predictably.
Actions indeed are more meaningful than words.
The blatant establishing of an official “papal rule” is a distractive canard; a red herring, for which there is no prophetic SDA doctrinal predicate with regard to eschatology.
I like your point about "bearing false witness" and this happens everytime we attack some other group and sterotype their people. If these things are to happen on schedule, then so be it. On the other hand the "beast" power or spirit can be manifest in any of us including our own church. It happens when one worships a church instead of God and makes it the ultimate purveyor of truth. We may even be guilty of worshiping the Sabbath and making it an end in itself when it is a symbol of Jesus who is our true rest from works.
But as someone else has said, when Christ came, He surprised the majority of Jews because they worshiped their religion and expected a Zionist warrior/leader to save their group rather than a spiritual leader and Savior of the whole world. I tend to think our eschatology is too narrow.
Maybe God wants this church to broaden its thinking to be more inclusive before He comes. EGW did not see the rise of Islam; and part of the GC prophecy could be conditional on our obedience to love others in belief and actions.
Ella,
That God wants us “to be more inclusive before He comes” doesn’t necessarily mean that our eschatology is too narrow.
I understand by “inclusive” you actually meant to be more willing to include others as possible players, with other possible end-time scenarios, in our eschatological outlook; but why?
Surely there were those in the preceding generation or two (or three) of Adventists who contemporaneously believed that Hitler’s Third Reich should have been “included” in eschatological terms. I may have mentioned this previously, but the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation upon which the GC narrative is based, are not conditional; at least according to Revelation 1:1 and Revelation 22:6.
Why do we sometimes feel a need—or a desire—to privatize or contemporize “our” eschatological understanding? We have been “gifted.” Why second-guess it?
I have my theories. How about you?
I am more than pleased with the way this thread is going–just as I had hoped. Yes, I have learned that I can trust the Big Picture as outlined in Scripture and, in particular, the book THE GREAT CONTROVERSY. The longer I live, the clearer both become. Of course, both streams have been misunderstood over the years, just as they were in Christ's day. But the closer one keeps to the Big Picture (The Great Controversy Theme), the clearer and safer one's understanding becomes. I too have lived through the several misapplications such as Hitler, or Communism, etc., being the fulfillers of certain prophecies, even in our own periodicals.
We must recognize that the "signs" include far more than "rumors of war," earthquakes, etc. The real issues are always working their ways through the contours of history, often just below the surface. Those who are keeping their eyes on the rapid increase of interest, even in our own circles, in a multitude of "self-help," experienced-centerered, religious praxis, are understanding more clearly the emphasis on "false revivals" so clearly emphasized in GC.
When she uses the phrases "alpha" and "omega," White is comparing the immensely powerful and almost overwhelming appeal of spiritualistic thinking that split, almost 50-50, the General Conference delegates (1903). She compared these pleasing concepts to a train that would pick up steam and baggage and become the Omega of the last days, especially in the Adventist Church. In a nutshell, many will be drawn to the excitement of novelty and "freshness" of religious practices that promise a new way to find inner peace and "satisfaction" in new spiritual disciplines, such as contemplative prayer, yoga, "the silence," or, for those so inclined, certain kinds of song-fests, etc.
Any kind of spiritual experience will do if it centers on "experience" that focuses on anything but a direct connection with our Lord through Bible study and prayer. Mantras are not meant to be a direct listening to a personal God–it goes in the opposite direction. One does not hear the clear message of condemnation for sin, for example. Or hear the calming whisper of a comforting Lord in tough times.
Many religious/spiritual forces will combine in the last days that will succeed in tempting and in "converting" even many Saturday-keepers–the pressure of standing amidst misunderstanding will not be worth it. Religious experience will triumph over calm spiritual reasoning resting on Scripture. The issues in the last of the last days will pivot on "whom" we actually worship. And the test of "experience" will be that pivot.
I don't think it is that simple and I have lots of questions concerning what you have said. I would be willing to present them to you without going through here. I am not sure what you consider "spiritualism" and what "split" the General Conference delegates in 1903. I understand spiritualism as one of those things one can't always explain, but you know it when you see it. The things you are calling spiritualism do not all fit the picture except in the minds of the practitioners. Going that route we would need to give up being vegetarian, vegan and a lot of good healthly exercises. We would have to say that only western medicine was right (even though it's often secular and even agnostic). The lines can't be drawn that sharply and they cut off most of the population we try to reach.
Why is not simple Bible study alone not preferred? Millions have devoted much time to studying the Bible without EGW's extra-biblical messages, which have often distorted, in some minds, the Bible as it is. The devotion to any particular Bible expositor, live or dead, can be a stumbling block or an asset. Theology is simply a branch of philosophy in studying the ethical patterns for living and why humans construct those models. There can never be absolute certainty on both of these disciplines, only becoming knowledgeable on all the various theories over the years, refining them, embracing them, only later to discard them for some newer theory.
There is no one who has more knowledge of God than anyone else. All that we know of God is what other humans have thought or written, and age and time cannot make any more valuable than another. The Bible writers had a particular view of God consistent with their contemporaries who perceived their gods; Christianity developed its ideas, leaving much of Judaism behind. The other monotheistic religion initiated by Mohamed also has a picture of God. All these three great religions have different ideas of God and for any to say only their is the true one is merely "my God is better than your God" boast. God is not bound by man's desire to "own" him for themselves: He is the God of all and anyone's opinion, whether written 4,000 years ago or yesterday or all of equal worth.
Are you suggesting that all of our knowledge of God is human generated? That the Biblical writers "created" a god in harmony with the prevailing theories of deity? If that it is the case then the Bible is no better than any other religious literature, and churches have no basis for their existence, other than to function as social clubs, which people use as escape mechanisms to keep them from thinking about their final destiny: compost.
The veracity of the Bible is too obvious for me to buy into that nonsense.
Stephen,
Yes, I can see your point about making our eschatology too contemporary to what is happening at the time. I take that seriously and will keep it in mind. A man by the name of Dave Wilkerson also had some visions of the end-times in the early 1970s. He was the evangelical who helped the urban gang members in NYC and had a number of miralces happen. His visions seem to ring true when it comes to the financial crises and environmental issues. However, he also missed the Islam threat/issue.
I think the whole Christian church should be included. All the seven churches were Christian and it is only when we come to the Laodicean that we try to make it our church only. I also believe the Holy Spirit works among the nonbelievers and other religions to those who will listen.
One interesting development that I believe has eschatological significance is the convergence of Catholic and Protestant on the question of the authority of Scripture.
It once was the case that Protestants held Scripture as their supreme authority, whereas Catholics viewed church tradition as paramount. Catholics viewed the Church itself as above Scripture (because the Catholic Church had established the canon) and taught that Scripture has authority only as mediated through and interpreted by the Church's teaching authority or magisterium.
Today, many Protestant theologians will come right out and deprecate the authority of Scripture, arguing that many passages are simply culturally conditioned and have no application today. In doing this, they effectively put themselves above Scripture. They will also sometimes come right out and say that the laity must accept the intepretations of trained theologians who have studied the original languages, etc. This attitude is well established in many of the liberal Protestant denominations, and is creeping slowly into the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
This new attitude on the part of Protestants toward Scripture is effectively moving Protestantism closer to Catholicism, which has always maintained that Scripture must be interepreted under the guidance of the Church's learned doctors.
David said it right. He could also have included the recent collaborations and joint conclusions that Evangelicals and Roman Catholics have made regarding the rehabbing of Martin Luther–but on their common terms. And the very soon reuniting of the Church of England with the Papacy. Examine the forthright statements from Protestants and Roman Catholics on theistic evolution. I could go on. This is all simply amazing and all within the last 40 years!
Turned off by conventional churches that have lost their spiritual pulse, these seekers also have turned off the Bible as a source of divine revelations. But these "turned off" ones are not leaving the circle of Christianity in order to follow the occult world–they are helping the occult world remodel the Christian Church, without realizing it. When clear Bible texts are made to say that "God is in everything and everything is in God," we should recognize the subtle deeption that is flooding even Christian bookstores. What a difference between, say 1990 and 2011! Cheers, Herb
Perhaps you have missed the development that a growing majority of Anglicans are evangelical with no intention of uniting with Rome? When you exclude the evangelicals and liberals who Rome does not want, how much of the Anglican church is left to unite with Rome?
Watching the religious cable channels it seems that Chritianity is becoming more and more similar. For instance they seem to be glued together by the Prosperity Gospel and dispensational pre-millinial (secret rapture crowd) support for Israel. Also spiritualism is creeping in.
BTW I too support Israel's right to exist, not for doctrinal reasons, but for simple common decency.
JaNe has his/her bright lights on! And we all can, I hope, agree with his/her comments about Israel. Regarding the tsunami of modern spiritualism (not the seance type): Never has a generation of young and old, or rich and poor, thrown itself with such abandon into the winds of subjectivism, hoping to satisfy its desires for spiritual warmth without self-denial. The world on all continents is being led to conform to a universal spirituality that proclaims the oneness of all–a brotherhood of "believers" who live in tolerance toward one another's religious beliefs because the Reality they worship is deeper than divisive doctrine. Or so they think! This global, unifying spirituality positions the world to welcome, perhaps the Mother Mary, the Great Peacemaker. Or the great Impersonator himself–Satan himself, when he imitates the return of Jesus. Just letting the flow make suggestions. Cheers, Herb
Haven't Protestants and Catholics always had a lot of things in common? Shared beliefs and values do not necessarily indicate a conspiracy. Liberal Protestantism and Catholicism do in many ways share a common world view, as do conservative Protestants and conservative Catholics. The former discount the authority of scripture and seek a kingdom of Heaven on earth through world government controlling economies, environmental impacts and redistribution of income. The latter take scripture much more seriously, believe in traditional values, and are alarmed at concentrated power without the checks and balances contained in constitutional, limited, representative government.
So where does that lead you Herb? Yes, there are movements afoot, and they presage the eschaton. But who will end up on which side is anything but clear, and the notion that the battle lines will be drawn along denominational fault lines within Christianity requires, I believe, a highly selective retrieval of available data from current events.
Surely, it is a pleasure reading Nathan's contributions from time to time. As we all know, it isn't easy predicting the future; in fact, it is hazardous, often foolish. All we can do is to keep our eyes on the Big Picture. How all the details keep reforming like a kaliedoscope is always fascinating, but not too disturbing, as long as we stay close to the prophetic contours. Personnaly, I keep my eye on the growing rapprochment between Catholics and Protestants (and eventually Muslims) as they collectively respond to the Perfect Storm (economic, social, natural, etc). In the end, it surely will be a union of erstwhile antagonists (no matter what level) in voting for world peace and global cooperation. All the while, those who value allegiance to what they understand are God's parameters, so contrary to the world in general, will come to the moment of Great Decision. How all the pieces in this Grand Experiment in running this world will develop will be most interesting to see! IMO.
Herb,
I'd like to pick up on a couple of your points and a question.
Spiritualism, as you see it. What do you make of the 1907 Kellog/Amadon interview?
The Alpha and Omega has just as much chance of being the "storm of conservative destruction" that is threatening our church today, as it has of being spiritualism.
If you are waiting for Muslims to work with Catholics and Protestants in any significant way…I suggest you don't hold your breath.
What about my point ealier about how Mohammed and Islam actually fit the 1260 year prophecy too? What do you do with that?
I would suggest that if there is anything in prophecy, the day could come when you are manning a paddle in a lifeboat alongside a catholic. If fundamentalist Islam had its way you would find that we Christians of all persuasions are in the same boat!
If I can say this respectfully (probably not), you spin good responses and a good yarn here when things go as you want. What about all the questions I and some others have addressed to you, and even David N for that matter. And you say nothing. It does puzzle me.
Cheers
I agree with much of your skepticism Chris. But I definitely see liberal Protestantism and liberal Catholicism as distressingly tolerant – even envious – of radical Islam and totalitarian regimes throughout the world, as long as they do not receive support from the U.S. I think on the political stage liberal Protestants, Catholics, and Muslims are in many ways working together very closely. Look at how "well" they work together in Europe and in the U.N. The Vatican has been speaking out rather forcefully regarding the need for centralized world authority over the economies of the world.
The forces that believe in righteousness through command and control political systems (liberal/apostate Protestants, authoritarian Catholics, and Muslims) seem to be increasingly cozy with political powers and political religions that are able to successfully sublimate individuality to the "greater good" through political means. I do not know how it will all play out. But I don't see how one can look at the current scene and not feel, in light of Bible prophecy, that we are at an historical end time, whether or not you see Sunday laws in your crystal ball.
There you go again Nathan. You must certainly know that your “crystal ball” is one in which you “see” nearly any entities that are ideologically or geopolitically at odds with you as included in your cast of eschatological players; yet exclude your ideological and/or geopolitical allies as possible/probable players.
You do this, I submit, because you reject your church’s teaching on both the beginning and the end of the age.
If, on the other hand, you were willing to accept your church’s teaching on “alpha” and “omega,” that is the Genesis narrative and the GC take on Daniel and Revelation particularly, you wouldn’t need a personal “crystal ball;” and would include your political allies as possible—even probable—players.
This hearkens back to an earlier exchange on this strand regarding how the Jewish leaders at the time of Jesus’ birth misinterpreted prophecy because of their geopolitical preoccupation.
I exclude nothing and no one as possible players, Stephen. Perhaps I am wrong in my interpretation of how religious interests seem to be aligning themselves with geopolitical powers and asserting their religious views as moral and political imperatives. But it would be nice if you would address that issue instead of personally attacking me because you think my eschatological views are the product of political ideology. I don't reject the Church's teaching. I simply think one large element of the narrative (denominational battles over Sunday laws) has little purchase in present day reality. And if our prophetic narrative does not speak to the reality that people perceive and inhabit, it is likely to primarily attract truthers and birthers.
Nothing in the Adventist or Biblical metanarrative, as constructed or applied, has historically indicted a particular political party or movement. But Adventists have, to say the least, been quite wary of collectivism and totalinarianism, since the powers of which we are warned will seek world domination, and exercise coercive power over over conscience and private behavior. Once collectivist structures and institutions are in place, you have what amounts to a state religion. Or, given the right mood, an overtly religious power can simply take over the apparatus that has been put in place.
So my inclination is to be highly distrustful of those who are laying the foundations and putting up the scaffolding for world government, rather than to worry about what political-religious forces will be administering the structure. Now you can reduce my interpretation of current events to partisan politics if you'd like. But the dynamics I articulate are quite consistent with SDA teachings. Who Knows? Perhaps it is my conservative Adventist upbringing, emphasizing personal freedom, individual responsibility, and limited government, that informs my eschatology and interpretation of current events. Do you know of any better structural safeguard against political domination by a religious power than a limited government with checks and balances that protects personal freedom of choice?
Nathan, I apologize if you were in any way offended or perceived my comments to be a personal attack on you. My comments were simply meant to be an attack, if you will, or challenge of the linking of your political ideological worldview to your personal eschatological crystal ball.
I remain unclear about your how your views of the Genesis narrative and of the Adventist take of eschatological events surrounding Sabbath and Sunday do not represent rejections of SDA teaching; but suffice it to say that your view that “Adventists have, to say the least, been quite wary of collectivism…” is at best anecdotal, and certainly not doctrinal in any sense. Instead, what this anecdotal view represents is simply an assessment of a particular cultural perspective.
The point being, where would one find official SDA teaching on, or about, collectivism?
Adventism teaches that the safeguards of liberty (against “political domination) in America will be dismantled by those religious powers and surrogates who gain and abuse American civil power. These people, whomever they may prove to be, are religious, Christian, and politically successful.
The so-called “reality that people perceive” Nathan, is seldom—if ever—the actual reality.
It's interesting that you mention "official SDA teaching" Stephen. I'm not sure I know what constitutes official SDA teaching. Do you? Surely you don't consider yourself the arbiter of what is official and what's not! And if you do, let me assure you that, as to many Adventist beliefs, you will find that the articulations of them by prior generations of Adventist leaders would be rejected by many of today's Adventist panjandrums. The fact that I don't find the present state of the evidence convincing as to certain theological and eschatological assertions simply means that some elements of the package are unproven to my way of thinking. It doesn't mean that I have rejected them.
Do you really think we should turn a blind eye to "non-religious" authorities that are calling for world government and the dismantling of the institutional structures that protect religious liberty? Isn't it possible, within your prophetic narrative, that non-religious forces could pave the way for the religious powers that you are focused on, so that the religious powers will not need to dismantle anything in order to oppress God's people? Your rejection of that possibility is only slightly less astonishing than your assertion that Adventism's opposition to political collectivism and totalitarianism is "at best anecdotal." That's a bit like saying that Adventists' love affair with vegemeat is at best anecdotal. The logical implication of your paranoia about evangelical Christians would have led Ellen White and Church leaders to advocate that Adventists support atheists and agnostics for political office whenever possible.
Let's be careful, whatever we believe, not to project what we believe and teach onto official Adventism's teaching or God's dogma. Isn't the "official Church" burdened with enough baggage?
Well, I’ll address a couple of questions. An official SDA teaching is one that is found in something like say…a Sabbath School lesson, or listed among the Fundamental Beliefs, or found in the E.G. White writings, or the SDA Bible Commentaries. I could be wrong, but I am simply not aware of the teaching on collectivism.
This is not to say that any economic system cannot be injurious to large numbers of people; or that political systems cannot be prohibitive of freedom of conscience.
However it is nothing more than an anecdotal commentary of a particular perspective to suggest that Adventists teach this as doctrine. It is not, to my knowledge, factual.
I am not paranoid about evangelical Christians. I am, if anything, “paranoid” about politically ambitious evangelical Christians in the United States. Besides, here is a variation of the old joke about paranoia: you’re not paranoid if they are really out to get you; whether they realize it or not.
Of course, my tongue is in my cheek; just in case you were wondering.
An official SDA belief is one that has been voted by the church. Simply appearing in a SDA publication does not make anything 'official'.
Legally speaking, I think you are correct, Kevin. A corporation can only act through its Board. It may be held responsible, on some theory like respondeat superior, for the actions of its officers or employees. But one cannot impute beliefs or tenets to an organization that are not officially adopted by its Board.
Herb, like you I look at the big picture through the great controversy lens between Christ and Satan. I take exception to betting the farm though, that it will all come about as EGW scripted in the book GC. To me there are too many SDA that follow in lockstep to EGW scenario ala the RCC. The supposed delay in Christ's coming, has produced all kinds of boogyman conspiracies to try and arose Laodecians from slumber and keep the cash rolling in for evangelism. To some there is a Jesuit plot behind everything that besets us today, and all this speculation about the Omega apostasy is just too much.
Just this past week in the Sabbath School class, someone called"spiritual formation" the Omega apostasy. When I challenged him by stating that spiritual formation as I understand it is descipleship with a goal toward kingdom living in obedience to Chirst, he said it was spiritualism plain and simple.
Why are Adventists so quick to denounce anything as spiritualism that they see as not rooted in anitquity and tradition? Even EGW had to battle against tradition in the face of the blessed message of righteousness by faith given in 1888.
Pauls tells us to "Quench not the spirit." I believe some folks are so spooked by anything they are not familiar with that they immediately write it off as omega, spiritualism or some other ad nauseum. A very devout and well read Adventist defined spiritualism as the "pursuit of knowledge without reason, or the examination of evidence." Think about that for a moment and consider that simple position like "God said it, I believe it, and that's the way it is" is an empty headed cliche with no reason or examination of evidence.
God wants us to study to show ourselves approved unto him and rightly divide thre word of truth, not just follow someone else's latest take on what they see as Omega, or whatever.
If you believe that Ellen White wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then you must believe that events will transpire as outlined in GC. 30 years ago if someone had predicted the specific events that lead to the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR, most of us would have wondered what they had been smoking. Since we can’t know the future, but God does, it behooves us to not be so quick to discount the predictions given to His messenger—no matter how far out they may appear to us.
If you study "spiritual formation," as it has been historically understood, and as it is practiced today in Christendom, you can only conclude that it includes elements of eastern mysticism, which is a form of spiritualism. Now, if SDA's don't want to be accused of buying into spiritualistic practices, and their brand of "spiritual formation" is different from what is normally understood to be SF, then they need to find different terminology to describe it. If SDA's are embracing something that contains spiritualism, it very well could become the "omega" of apostasy, since the "alpha" (pantheism) was closely related.
Historically Christian spiritual formation did not include the elements of eastern mysticism which have only been imported in the last generation. I don't why we need to find new terminology just because some Christians are importing something they shouldn't into spiritual formation. It is like suggesting we find new terminology for salvation or sanctification because some Christians use those words to refer to things we don't believe in.
We should not too quickly discount the possibility of things not transpiring exactly as Ellen White outlined. There are many OT prophecies – made by genuine prophets – which had to be reinterpreted because they did not turn out as originally planned.
I find it interesting that the Indiana movement (the alpha) was essentially a conservative perefctionistic movement, but most people want to apply the prediction of an omega to match it as being a liberal movement. Is it not more likely that the omega will also be a perfectionistic movement? I don't believe we should be looking to the left wing of the church to find that.
Horrace,
You talk about the alpha as pantheism. Have you seen the Kellog Amadon interview?
(Herb obviously has not been around, has not seen it, or does not want to talk about it atm as my question remains unaswered.)
What is your take on it?
Read the Kellogg-Amadon interview and you will be better prepared to discuss pantheism.
Elaine,
One of the really interesting things to do is compare some of the things Kellogg says in that interview with quotes from EGW writings up to and around the same time. She was using the same terminology, concepts, and ideas…that is untill it became unpopular to do so! Even checking her use of the term "soul temple" and the similarities illustrates it.
These people who label any thing slightly outside their box or world view as "spiritualism" are often ill informed. The Kellogg pantheism spectre promoted by the Church is often equally misleading.
Kellogg was terribly maligned because he was charged with pantheism and it has stuck for all these years, very unfairly.
There are statements from COL that sound very similar to those which were attributed to Kellogg. When EGW wrote against anyone, he was branded for life in the SDA community. She could build or destroy and did both by her approval or disapproval, she was the law.
The Kellogg drama was ultimately a power struggle. It was easier to deal with once the Church managed to make it a "doctrinal" issue. As you say, very unfairly.
Unfairly or otherwise, all issues in the SDA church tend to become 'doctrinal' issues. I guess it is better than them becoming personal issues. Although, sometimes I think we make everything a 'doctrinal' issue because then we can avoid any interpersonal issues, and it usually excuses the church of any blame. We really are better at handling ideas than handling people.
CB: I do regret that I find it impossible to keep up with each contribution, as much as I would like to. I try hard to find time, at least every other day, and before I go to bed when I do. Your comments and everyone else's are valuable and worth far more time and space than permitted here.
Yes, long years ago I read the report of the 1907 Kellogg/Amadon interview. Lots of interesting insights. Like all other similar conversations, we have no chance to raise questions or even rebut. Dr. Kellogg was a man whom the White's loved dearly and made it possible for him to attend medical school. Her personal letters to him, that people have seen only years after they both died, were letters that any of us would have cherished as intensely supportive, even when others were treating him poorly. In fact, Kellogg was the chief exponent of her emphasis on health reform (which did not endear him to most of the ministers at that time.) After saying all that and much more, her counsel to him regarding his subtle (and deceptive) theological theories was blunt–and at times, he conceded. So much to say here.
When Elder Spicer returned to Washington in 1901 after his mission term in India, he was astonished when he read The Living Temple–that was exactly the thinking he had been contending with in India but wrapped up with biblical terms.
Some ask about Alpha and Omega: In my book Red Alert, I devoted two chapters to the New Spirituality–Edmerging Church Movement and how to identify it. In a few words, we are not talking about Christian growth based on a personal relationship to our Lord, crucified, risen, and soon to return. The modern Spiritual Formation emphasis aims at experience developed through an asortment of modalities, sometimes called spiritual disciplines. Not all express themselves the same way but the movement emphasized a Christ in everybody and only waits to be found through contemplative prayer, quiet times, conversations with others who also are trying to find the experience. The Bible is not read, if a all, as the Word of God asking for our personal response. Any spiritual experience that attempts to find "God within" without listening to the Word of God is surely a tempting shortcut–sounds fresh and novel. But loaded with deception.
Regarding Catholic, Protestants and Muslims–that's the way I see Rev 16 developing. I have written a chapter on this in Red Alert, using materials found in current literature, I kid you not! And when I am asked if the Islam rise to power and a 1260 time period has any part to play in my historio/theologial picture, I have to say that it is interesting–but there is no biblical prophecy that comes close to that picture. IMO. Thanks being patient. Herb
Herb,
I would like to read your book Red Alert, of course, to see what you have to say. However, thus far I disagree with much of what you have said about spiritiual disciplines, formations, or what ever. It puts quite a lot of weight on terminology, for one thing, which can be inaccurate. One can only know by asking what an individual may mean by the term.
I feel that you do a disservice to many who use spiritual disciplines for health and spiritual reasons. Just because something is practiced by new age, catholic, eastern or any other culture does not make it "spiritualism" or evil, including being a vegan! It reveals a sort of western prejudice that everything must come from a western culture (Christ was not really western either). Now, really, how many people do you know that left the church over yoga? This sounds like superstition!
For example, the practice of relaxation exercises and breathing can be done by a new ager or by someone trying to lower his blood pressure. A western doctor in the 1930s stumbled on the fact that right breathing can help heal disease. Herbert Benson in recent years showed us the healing power of meditative breathing (used in accordance with our belief system or no belief at all). It works for an atheist or a believer. It is physical. I think you might be interested in reading up on brain science and brain chemistry to see how these modalities work on the physical person.
This doesn't mean that such practices aren't used by the enemy, but so is everything from television to religion itself. It depends on which side the practitioner comes from and where his/her heart is–meditation in praise and worship to our Lord or in silence, He is with us. Where is our trust here? (I reminds me somewhat of the debate over speaking in tongues from the NT.) It's like doing away with prayer because someone might pray to the devil!
There is much more I could say about these things, but there isn't room here.
Hi Herb,
Tks for the comment. Glad you have just been absent, not playing avoidance games. I'll have to mull over it some:)
Horace, if every time we changed the terminology to overcome the guilt by asssociation some Adventists use to counter what they see as heresy simply in a word, we'd be rewriting something all the time. Back in the 1980's there was a Sabbath School Leader's helps publication which was printed quarterly. It was called "Celebration." I was an adult SS leader back then, and I can remember the hue and cry of those who, not even reading it, bought into the notion that it had something to do with "celebration" worship style. It was nothing of the kind.
SDA believe in being alive in Christ with an indwelling of Him through the Holy Spirit. It seems like some folks are so scared of anything that bears the name "spiritual formation" that they would even reword the text, "Christ in you the hope of glory." Colossians 1:27. Even EGW said that although Christ was sinless, He had to FORM a righteous character for mankind to pattern.
Perhaps this should be our greater focus than spook chasing and theological McCarthyism.
Some thoughts on some of the topics discussed in this thread …
I agree with Herb that there are spiritualist forces within liberal Protestantism, liberal Catholicism, and the New Age movement that have a common agenda. But guess what? Catholics such as Mitch Pacwa, SJ, also are concerned about the New Age threat, and have written strongly about it. I believe that these forces are the thing that will likely dominate in the last struggle, and will prepare the way for the positive reception of messages delivered by apparitions of deceased loved ones, saints, and Mary, culminating in Satan’s final great deception. And I hear conservative Protestants and some Catholics issuing the same warnings. (Some very good critiques of the Medjugorje apparitions have appeared in the most traditionalist Catholic publications).
But I would caution against a too narrow focus on what we think “must happen.” That can give us blinders to very real threats around us.
Back in the 19th and early 20th century, Adventist writings on prophecy were filled with discussions of the role of Islam in history, focused on “The Eastern Question,” and the “Sick Man of the East.” After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Islam retreated from Adventist consciousness as a living threat to Christianity. Interestingly, Hilaire Belloc, in his 1938 book, “The Great Heresies,” accurately predicted a resurgence of Islam as a political force. And in the years before his death, Samuele Bacchiocchi came to believe that Islam is more important in Bible prophecy than Adventists have heretofore thought.
Adventists have not seen secularism or militant atheism as threats. During the Cold War, Liberty said little about the fate of Christians in the Soviet bloc—the denomination was embarrassed by folks like Vladimir Shelkov. The House recently had hearings on the state of religious liberty in America today. No Seventh-day Adventists testified. Evangelicals and Catholics did, defending our American heritage and focusing on the threats of anti-Catholicism, secularism, and political correctness (while the leaders of the major secularist groups, the ACLU and AU, argued that religious liberty must only be allowed to apply to issues of worship). See the links I gave above.
Scripture is full of warnings that the very elect run the risk of being deceived. I think we need to get away from our focus on specific things we fear, and focus instead on the message that God says must be given in the last days: a message to fear God, worship the Creator, and uplift Jesus.
I’ve written about some of the “emerging church” issues. “Spiritual formation” is not a danger—it is a necessity that we properly form the spirituality of our people. Otherwise, they will be susceptible to false forms of spiritual formation. We need to teach them authentic “spiritual disciplines,” not treat “spiritual discipline” as a cuss word. Fasting, Scripture reading, prayer, common worship, Sabbath rest—these are “spiritual disciplines”!!!! But do we teach new converts how to pray? Do we teach them about proper worship? Do we teach them the joys of Sabbath rest? Do we form them in our corporate spirituality?
As to the “very soon reuniting of the Church of England with the Papacy”—no. The Church of England is going in the opposite direction. It has abandoned both Scripture and Tradition. That is why many Anglicans and Episcopalians are leaving the Church of England and the Episcopal Church to form conservative churches and, in some cases, joining Catholicism as groups. Rome is establishing an Anglican ordinariate to govern these groups that have become Catholic. But it is no “reuniting of the Church of England with the Papacy,” but a trickle of folks leaving one church and joining another.
For myself, as an historian, I’d suggest we go back to the sources of the “Great Controversy” theme. Go back to Ellen White’s first accounts of the 1858 Lovett's Grove vision, especially volume one of Spiritual Gifts. She added much material from her reading of history to expand this for The Spirit of Prophecy and The Great Controversy. And I think we are tempted to focus on the details of those expansions as opposed to the broad strokes that were in the actual vision. I suggest we go back to that big picture as we seek to understand what is most important in those later elaborations.
And let’s not forget all that Ellen White said about speaking positively about other churches, and collaborating where we can with other churches (read Evangelism! read about her efforts with the WCTU!). Some read GC in such a way as to fear common soup kitchens, and imagine that we are only preaching the third angel’s message correctly if we are putting up anti-Catholic billboards. She came down hard on folks in her day who she thought were driven by a misguided zeal untempered by justice or prudence.
I experienced firsthand that Catholicism has not changed as much as some imagined in the aftermath of Vatican 2. It still holds to the supremacy of the pope and the authority of the Magisterium; it still teaches the beliefs of purgatory and indulgences and justification that the Reformation opposed (and these were the beliefs and practices that led the Reformers to identify the papacy with antichrist). It is retreating from the folk and hootenany masses of the 70s and returning to a more traditional liturgy, even allowing any priest who wants to celebrate the pre-Vatican 2 mass the freedom to do so. But, at the same time, it is boldly preaching religious liberty in a way that Catholic extremists such as the SSPX say is a sell-out. It has faithful martyrs who stood up for the Christian faith in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and Poland and Cuba. It has faithful witnesses who have struggled to keep Christianity alive in many Islamic lands. Let's paint a realistic picture of Catholicism today, not a cartoon. Let's be clear about the differences, but let's not be ashamed of the things we agree on. It's the latter that will allow us to build relationships to Catholics that will make evangelism possible. No Catholic will listen to crude, uninformed, attacks.
Once we reject, for whatever reason, the historical Seventh-day Adventist take on eschatological events, it’s not hard to come up with a variety of end-time players or scenarios. In fact, in such case, we have no choice but to look for alternatives.
Brother Cork said, "No Catholic will listen to crude, uninformed, attacks." Are you saying that the material in GC is of that nature? I don't think the Reformers would take that view, nor would those who crafted our Constitution. They weren't that far removed from the Papal supremacy of the Dark Ages.
I agree with Brother Foster. Once you discount our understanding of eschatology (which is based on solid exegesis), you've entered the twilight zone, and anything is possible, from the fanciful nonsense promoted by Timothy Lahaye, to the false prophecies of Harold Camping.
No, I'm not referring to GC. I'm referring to a lot of Adventist folklore that is not from GC.
Interesting about Hillaire Belloc predicting a resurgence of Islam. Was he ever prophetic!
Also interesting is the drain of people from the Aglican and Episcopal church. That is an extreme case of ecclesial suicide. Liberal Adventists often talk as if doctrines are barriers to entry, and that we would grow faster if we wouldn’t worry about doctrines. But it turns out that doctrines are barriers to exit, and a church–like the Episcopal Church–that believes absolutely nothing has no ability to hold onto anyone.
Bill Cork
One of the best posts on this thread. I agree totally with what you have written.
"No Catholic will listen to crude, uninformed, attacks." Attacks are O.K. only if they are not "crude"?
The world is currently less religious (excepting Islam) than it has ever been. The prophetic voices of those 100+ years ago reflected anti-Catholicism as well as Protestantism as it was then. All of those Catholic and mainline Protestant churches are losing members and attendees yearly. Would there ever be sufficient numbers to enforce the mark of the beast for which Adventists have believed and preached for all those years? Is it possible to envision how it might be possible, given the more secular sentiment growing daily? All the polls show there is less enthusiasm for organized religion which does not indicate enthusiasm for any day of worship. When the majority of the U.S. is not found in churches on Sundays, other than Easter and Christmas, to continue preaching the soon combined efforts of Catholics and Protestants in "forming a worship of the beast" defies reason today. I know of no Adventists, other than a few here and there who are even perturbed by such a possibility. It is very far-fetched to engender any enthusiasm.
It is not necessarily the prophetic purpose of the Advent movement—or of the prophetic Third Angel’s Message—to “engender enthusiasm.” Warning messages are seldom generators of enthusiasm.
While it is true that “the majority of the U.S. is not found in churches on Sundays,” it is also true that the majority of the U.S. does not vote. This reality does not change the fact that elections are held nonetheless in which legislators are elected; and that all residents and citizens are subsequently affected by these elections—no matter their involvement/participation.
Truthfully, the situation of today's global economy is far more troubling than SDA eschatology, for while it is held by some, and not all Adventists, to get the world to even listen to such a theory when they are hungy, starving, losing all their pensions is a true exercise in futility. It sounds as if all those posting here are smug in their righteous beliefs and have no understanding of today's real problems.
Tell us: if a man is hungry, out of work, fearful of losing his home, what are the chances he will reach for a book telling him how the world will end? It ends for everyone when they take their last breath and most of those living today will never be alive to see the future so terribly depicted in G.C. A 19th century view of the world is as old as 1,000 years ago in today's rapid changes.
Elaine,
The troubled economy is all a part of the equation. Whether we agree with it or not, there is a sizeable measure on contrivance when it comes to the global economy. There is nothing "smug" about believing the Bible when it says that you "will not be able to buy, nor sell, unless you receive the mark of the beast."
Give us your exogesis on Revelation 13 to help us better understand how to interpret "today's rapid changes" in the 21st century. Questions / observations without answers is generally meaningless. It's like picking at scabs. Whether you realize it or not, "today's real problems" is what drives this subject. Where will all of what's going on before us lead us? The Bible says that things will not get better in the light of your given scenarios. Do you see it differently? If so, how so?
Elaine
people in great are need are the noes who are more prone to listen the prophesies of the Bible than people that have a easy life.
Some stats below show that Protestant America is actually Catholic America:
♥T
In the Summer of 2009, Pope Benedict issued a lengthy encyclical calling for a world political authority "with teeth": "To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is an urgent need of a true world political authority…"
I wholeheartedly agree with Bill Cork's most informative insights, and the admonitions by him and others to look at the big picture, and not get hung up on the details. But isn't this big picture stuff? There are wealthy, powerful interests and politicians that overtly support the Pope's agenda. Has anyone read Al Gore's Earth in the Balance? There you see a raison and a blueprint for secular and religious authorities to morph their identites under the banner of spiritualism. Many SDAs have a blinkered perspective on the current geopolitical stage. They stand guard around the "Wall of Separation", ready to fire at anything that approaches the wall in religious garb. If anyone points out to them the totalitarians and collectivists razing the structures of privacy and freedom surrounding the wall, they turn into Inspector Renaults. "Let's see their paperwork…Hmm, nope, no Sunday Law activists here; nothing to worry about; ignore it; back to guard duty."
Nathan,
As we have been around this barn several times, I will simply point out that the prophecies the Great Controversy narrative are purposefully narrow and do not, necessarily discount the possibility of different players and scenarios around the world. However, the prophetic narrative, as it applies to the U.S., points specifically to a marriage of church and state, with (apostate) Protestants inhabiting the role of the image of the beast. To wit:
This identifies a the protagonists as politicians, the beast and the image of the beast — a marriage of church and state moralists in the U.S. You may not buy it, but at least it is clear.
Those who believe this interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation see, already, clear signs of its accuracy. Asking them to look in other directions is either a distraction or a further leap of faith, based on an unwritten, amorphous, post-dated prophetic scenario that avoids the obvious parallels to the Adventist narrative.
Why look elsewhere when we have fingerprints, motive, DNA, a confession (by the beast regarding the change of Sabbath observance to Sunday) and witnesses? Isn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt enough for you "libs?
(Sorry, I couldn't resist)
Cheers.
What a novel concept…instead of defending the GC narrative, just put it out there and simply have it accepted or rejected!
If you accept it, then it is very obvious that what has been predicted is happening even as we “speak.” If you reject it, then the (scenario and) players you personally come up with will assume the roles that you personally assign.
Well said Preston. (Who are your parents?:)
Preach it Brother Foster!
" a confession (by the beast regarding the change of Sabbath observance to Sunday) and witnesses? Isn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt enough for you?
The cock also claimed to make the sunrise. Does that make it so?
No human could CHANGE the sabbath. It was given to the Jews at Sinai. Just ask any Jew today which day is the sabbath and if it has been changed.
Change often comes incrementally. Institutions change, society changes, nations change, change is inevitable and cannot be stopped. The Christian church in the early second century began meeting and celebrating in honor of the Resurrection on the first day of the week. After the destruction of the sacred temple in 70 A.D. there were no longer Jewish Christians of record and the church became, de facto, a Gentile church. By the early fourth century, meeting and celebrating on the first day of the week had become the common day for Christians to rest and the Roman Emperor, Constantine, desiring to unify the Roman Empire, realizing that this day was already being observed by Christians, wanted to make it a Christian empire and ordered the first day to be rest day for all its citizens. It was never made to replace Sabbath, as the Jews were also given freedom, as were all other religions then, the freedom to practice as they wished.
This is the true history, not the one found in Great Controversy. Simply "Google" Constantine and first day. He was also the first ruler to enact religious liberty to the entire Roman Empire to practice their own religion.
Elaine,
You copied and pasted it, but somehow managed not to read it. Your reflexes are a bit too fast. My words were, " a confession (by the beast regarding the change of Sabbath OBSERVANCE to Sunday) . . ."
You may deny it for them, but the Vatican claims it did just that.
So, to paraphrase Richard Pryor, should I believe you or my lying eyes?
You are right, Elaine. No man can change the Sabbath. That is exactly the point. That is why their claim fits the description of the beast ("He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws," Daniel 7:25).
These are sources only Adventists know about. Neither is an authoritative Catholic source. Please find something that Catholics would consider authoritative.
Bill Cork,
(As I recall, we have also done this.)
I would think that some, if not many, if not most, if not all Catholics would agree with Wikipedia that “The Catechism of the Catholic Church (or CCC) is the official text of the teachings of the Catholic Church.” With this being the case, allow me to once again refer to its very text:
Sunday—fulfillment of the Sabbath
2175
Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107
Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.108
2176
The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.
(Emphasis added by me.)
There you go. That's the best source to quote.
To quote those other sources that only SDAs seem to know about it like some quoting the "Lake Union Herald" as authoritative, or, dare I say, "Questions on Doctrine," or Desmond Ford's "Daniel," or M. L. Andreasen's, "The Sanctuary Service." All published by official Seventh-day Adventist publishing houses, of course. 🙂
You emphasize OBSERVANCE which is the word used in the Catholic quotation.
To believe that the Catholic church changed observance of Sabbath to Sunday is to deny that for nearly two millennia Christians had been observing Sunday. How can a claim of changing a day be believed when it has been practiced previously for 2,000 years!
The SDA joined the Christian "band wagon" to promote anti-catholicism, a factor in 19th century America, beginning then. The Catholic statement you quote is dated 1923. Bill Cork has written that there was anti-Judaism in the early centuries of Christianity just as anti-catholicism was prominent in the U.S.in the 19th and 20th centuries when EGW wrote the G.C.
"You emphasize OBSERVANCE which is the word used in the Catholic quotation."
Is this an affirmation or a question? The more we seem to agree, the more problems you seem to see.
Anti-Catholicism is a red herring. I believe Catholic people, along with those of other faiths are loving, people who are God's children. The beef is not with the believers, but with an organization that calls men "Holy Father," and claims authority to change or ignore what God Himself sanctified. It is how we got to be called "Protestants." We have theological disagreements — as you have with Adventists. Does that make you an Adventist bigot? I also have a beef with some Protestant believers who forgot what they were protesting. We have, like the title of this article says — and prophecy predicted, blended.
"Google Kenneth Strand and Sunday Observance" for a detail history of the origin of Sunday as a rest day.
Kenneth Strand was professor of church history, Theological Seminary, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, and editor of Andrews University Seminary Studies, when this article was written. He has edited, compiled, or authored many books, including Interpreting the Book of Revelation, A Panorama of the
Old Testament World, and A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Near East. He aided in school planning for several overseas colleges. Copyright 1978 by Kenneth A. Strand
Sunday was clearly being observed in the second century, arising in Rome and due largely to anti-Judaism, as documented by Samuele Bacchiocchi. It was associated with the observance of Easter Sunday, dissociated from the 14th of Nisan, which also had anti-Jewish rationale (just read Constantine's letter to the bishops who weren't able to attend the Council of Nicea). Folks have been wanting to cleave Christianity from its Jewish roots for a long time, starting when Gentile Christians wanted to be free from Rome's antipathy towards Judaism, continuing with the supercessionism and deicide and "blood guilt" of the Middle Ages, on through liberal scholars like Harnack, to theologians who supported National Socialism, notably Kittel and Althaus. This anti-Judaism paved the way for Christian acceptance of 19th century German "scientific" antisemitism. Yes, Sunday was made to replace the Sabbath. When Sunday is defended in early Christian writings, the Sabbath is denigrated. Jews are the object.
Good points that we need to be reminded of.
Elaine,
(Needless to say, we have done this.)
The Sabbath—in reality—was not changed; indeed, neither could it ever be. Nevertheless, it has been, and continues to be, a teaching of Rome that the Sabbath should “no longer” be observed; and that INSTEAD Sunday, a day whose observance is of pagan origin, should (now) be considered holy; in commemoration of the resurrection.
God considers the Sabbath a commemoration of creation; and a reminder of the Creator.
Stephen, do you believe that Christ inagurated a New Covenant? Was there any difference from the Old Covenant made with the Israelites? If any, what was the difference? What did Paul mean in his letter to the Galatians about the Law was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ and now the He has come, we have no need of a schoolmaster?
In all the explanation given to the Christians by Paul (the Gospels were not addressed to Christians), where is there a command to obey the LAW? What Law was Paul referring to? Why did he say that no one should be judged on a day they observed? Why did he say no man should judge another? Were pagan Gentiles previously observing Sabbath? In the instructions for them where is Sabbath ever mentioned?
This is what I believe Jesus came to do regarding the law: Matthew 5:17-22.
This is what I believe about the covenants: Romans 10:3-10, Galatians 2:19-20, Galatians 3:4.
This is what I believe about Paul regarding (and what he taught about) the Sabbath: Acts 17:2, Acts 18:4, Hebrews 4:4-10.
And this is what I believe about the difference between the Jews and the early gentile Christians: Romans 10:12-16, Romans 11:11-24.
We are now to obey God out of love, not out of legal obligation. As we walk in the Spirit, the Lord will direct our steps toward obedience. It is a matter of the heart.
We are not to judge anyone about anything, including a day that is observed; everyone should be personally persuaded in this regard. The problem comes when someone actually teaches and/or demands disobedience to any commandment.
The Sabbath, in my opinion, is only an issue if and when we are ever taught or commanded to disregard it.
Where in the NT are Christians taught to disregard the many Jewish feasts, ceremonies, and festivals? Are ceremonies not given specified times? Is Sabbath a specified time? How can only some be disregarded while others are to be observed forever?
Elaine,
How many times have you asked the same questions concerning the Sabbath Day, and the Feast Days which were accounted as a Sabbath? I don't get the point. The discussion never seems to get any traction moving forward to some sort of resolution as to what the Bible is saying and why? In all the attempts to clarify what the Bible says in regards to your quesitons, you for whatever the reason want to continue to run the Sabbath / Feast Day questions around the barn… 😕
The Feast Days were days given by God as instructional aids illustrating the work of the promised Messiah / Christ in His earthly / heavenly ministry in the plan of salvation for the human race. They were days of rest in the context of commemorating / resting in each facit of the work of Christ from His sacrifice upon the cross (burnt alter) to the total earadication of sin and the ushering in of the kingdom of righteousness (Day of Atonement) in the PROMISE PHASE of the plan of salvation. The discontinuance of these Feast Days is not a matter of disregarding anything… but rather a matter of fulfillment. John 17:2-4; John 19:30; Romans 10:4
This is the basis of the book of Hebrews. The writer was purpose was to reestablish the Jewish Christians in faith in Jesus Christ as everything better as the fulfillment of the rituals in the sanctuary serivces (the first, the shadow, etc.), around approximately 67 A.D.. What would be more valuable to you, the picture of the one you love, or the presence of the one you love? The sanctuary service with all of it's rituals is the photograph that portrays the life / ministry of Jesus Christ. Now that He's come and finished His work on the earth in establishing a righteousness the established God's law, met all of it's requirements on humanity's behalf as their Representative including His death, He's at the right hand of God ready / willing / able to pour out the covenant blessings upon all who believe.
As to the weekly Sabbath… whether you agree or not, it was established to be, and will ever be a day of rest (spiritual) in the completed works of God, whether it be creation / redemption / total restoration.
Correction:
They were days of rest in the context of commemorating / resting in each facit of the work of Christ from His sacrifice upon the cross (Passover) to the total earadication of sin and the ushering in of the kingdom of righteousness (Day of Atonement) in the PROMISE PHASE of the plan of salvation.
There are many sources for the change in observance of one wants to take the time to look for them outside the SDA Church. (Actually Bacchiochi did the most extensive SDA study to my knowledge.) Recently I saw a documentary on Public Television that acknowledged it.
However, I don't think the Christain world (or anyone else) will take it seriously until it is presented in its true meaning as a symbol of Christ our Rest. Our seal is Christ even as it was at the time of the Exodus–the blood on the door. In ignoring progressive truth since EGW we have not presented the Sabbath in its beauty beyond a memorial to creation–it is also a memorial to our re-creation by Christ. If we wonder why most of the world ignores the true Sabbath–I believe this is why.
One fact we often overlook is that most seventh-day-observing organizations in the world today are of the white-supremicist orientation. This places Adventism in some very rough company, and given a rush of new assaults on innocents by supremacists, such as the recent attack by a gunman in Norway, it is not totally unforseeable that seventh-day Sabbatarian rights could suffer internationally, led by world events in extremis. Frankly, while the extreme anti-Catholic prejudices of the past are diminishing in the United States, Calvinistic evangelicalism and traditional Catholicism remain far apart in both doctrinal emphasis and style of worship. In today's world, the necessity for these two groups to somehow cohere to bring on end times seems less important than in the past. What is needed is a galvanizing force to cement public opinion against Sabbatarians, and there are a number of alternative ways (aside from a unified religious movement) this could happen to achieve the same ends portrayed by Ellen White in The Great Controversy.
Where did you get this information? I have not heard it before. I don't think the Messianic Jews would fit this description; they may be the largest group.
Some folks continue to search out all possible ways that EGW can be right. All the myriad possibilities, never considering that she may be wrong, as she has been in the past. Why shouldn't we have our eyes open to the political machinations in the world without trying to fit them into a template of our own making?
Obviously since that which has been predicted as fulfillment of the prophecies of Revelation 13 has not yet occurred, it does not take much to suggest that she may be wrong. But it does take a willingness to ignore the ascendancy of politically ambitious religious individuals and entities in the United States—and the stated agenda of each—to suggest that there is no likelihood that she may be right.
So much wisdom in all the comments above. Regarding Ella's hope for presenting the Sabbath "more fully" is in direct sinc with Ellen where she has been holding up this challenge for a long time. For more than a century Adventists have emphasized the two-fold message of the seventh-day Sabbath–the time to remember our Creator and a time to thank Him for His restoring power as our Living Savior. Perhaps world conditions will present Adventists with another reason for preaching the Sabbath "more fully." When it comes to analyzing, the religious world of Protestants and Catholics (and perhaps Muslims), no one knows today just how the coalition will form–but it will. All we can do is make clear every day what the words and practice of Jesus look like–in living color today, Those who keep their eyes on the Big Picture are not troubled by events here and there that seem to dispute that Big Picture. We must remember the popular stream running through both Catholics and Protestants–doctrines divide, common causes unite. We all are amazed how quickly "flash mobs" develop, how quickly such events dominate all TV newscast, and how quickly emotions flare in most every home or campus. And we also must remember that there are a multitude in all churches and in all political and juridical circles who will hear the cry, "Come out of her, my people." Everybody I know is a candidate for Truth in these last days. Cheers, Herb
""For more than a century Adventists have emphasized the two-fold message of the seventh-day Sabbath, which has always been the reason for the SDA church. Its emphasis on the day, which is to preach the Law, with the Gospel and grace as secondary. The current SS lessons with its focus on the Law in Galatians, distorts Paul's message that the Law was ONLY to lead to Christ and now that He has come we are no longer under the Law and are ALL sons of God through faith in Christ JEsus: Jew, Greek, slave and free, male and female.
To return to the Law is to return to the Old Covenant which has been declared obsolete. Grace must take a back seat when the Law if front and foremost.
You're describing a SDA Church that is foreign to me. I grew up in the church, always understanding that salvation is by faith, but that faith cannot stand alone. Faith is an active principle. It produces works, as James so eloquently states in his epistle. And Paul is clear that grace does not eliminate the law. Trying to separate grace and works or faith and works, or trying to pit one against the other is like trying to decide which is more important, the lungs or the heart. It's a silly question. You can't have one without the other.
True faith will produce works. True works (for which Paul says we were created) are a result of faith. Not being under the law doesn't mean we dispense with it. Which commandments would you like to eliminate? Am I now free to steal, lie, kill, disrespect my parents, etc.? Of course not!
Jesus said we will be known by our fruits, not by our works. The Pharisees were perfect in obeying the Law (works).
"It is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; NOT BY ANYTHING OF YOUR OWN, BUT BY A GIFT FROM GOD, NOT BY ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE DONE, SO THAT NOBDOY CAN CLAIM THE CREDIT."
This refutation: "Am I now free to steal, lie, etc." is not the response to grace. Even the Gentiles which did not have the Law, still do what is written in the Law (did the Gentiles worship the same God as the Jews? Did they observe the same holy day? The laws that cover murder, lying, and stealing are much older than the Law given at Sinai. They are the laws found in many older cultures. The Law that applied to the Isrealites were never given to anyone else; this Law was from their god (not the other gods which were recognized in this Law) only to them. It was not applicable to the surrounding pagan tribes. Nor was it ever given to the new Gentile Christians.
To conclude that if Christians don't observe the Sinaitic Law they are not obedient, is to ignore than Christ said love fulfills the Law, and all the Law is summed up in Love.
Love to one's neighbor cannot be obeyed if one steals, kills, etc. But to say that all those in the world who do not observe the first four commandments will not obtain salvation is not found in the NT: the Christian's guide.
We may be known by our fruits, but we will be judged by our works–which are the fruit of faith. The two can't be separated. Faith without works isn't faith; and works without faith is legalism. It's like the heart and lungs; you need them both. It's also like light. A light switch is like faith; a light is like works. The light won't work unless the switch is flipped; the switch is useless unless it is used to turn on the light.
You keep mixing in irrelevant elements. We're discussing the obligations of Christians, not pagans who have never heard of Christ. We know that many of them will be saved because they lived up to all the light they had. Christians are in a different category because of the light they've received. If they ignore it, they will be lost. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that so many professed Christians hate the Sabbath. They're in favor of displaying the 10 commandments wherever they can, but they want a 10% discount. The following is a quote from a friend of mine on another forum, and pertains to professed Christians: "Salvation ALWAYS comes WITH obedience, but it NEVER comes THROUGH obedience. IOW, none will be saved by obedience to God's law, but none will be saved while disobeying God's law." Emphasis was his.
Elaine,
To me this is a tired, nonsensical, impractical, illogical, unscientific way of explaining the issue of grace and the law; if "works" aren't "fruit" by another name, I don't know what you mean. This just doesn't seem logical to me. The first four commandments are to acknowledge God as our Creator, Redeemer and Friend, not for salvation. The last six let us know what sin is against our fellow humans. (Primitive or heathen people don't always recogize these, and they are needed to understand what love looks like–ask some of the missionaries.) Are you saying that it is not as important to acknowledge our God with these symbols as it is to respect people? And He gets second place, or no place at all. Is idol worship (in the same group) all right? Of course, Christians wouldn't worship idols, but yet they deny the importance of the time set aside for God! Yes, love fulfils the law.
Fortunately our God understands how humans have held on to their traditions and haven't thought these things out. they have interpreted even the plain scriptures in keeping with their traditions; they have ignored the history of Sunday as well. This being the case, He does not hold them responsible until such a time it will become common knowledge for all. I don't even know if Adventists will be the ones to bring this about, since they have not presented the Sabbath as it should be–symbolic of Christ our righteousness and rest. That being the case, many Sundaykeepers are keeping the Sabbath better in their hearts than Sabbathkeepers (like some 1st-century Jewish leaders who stood by and encouraged the murder of their Creator).
Are you saying that David who spoke of his love for the law in the Psalms is not saved or was keeping it for salvation? No, he is saved by grace and through Christ just as we all are.
I am not of the exclusive Adventist-only-remnant thought, so I would appreciate not being stereotyped.
I thank Mrs. Nelson for her post above which is a classic example of the 'blending' ( or compromise?), which overtly posits a false Law/Grace dichotomy that is not found in scripture. Such manmade doctrine is found within the cheap grace factions of Christianity at large; and now, sadly, even within cultural bAdventism (ex-Adventism).
Seems the 'blending' is really doing its thaing and is more engaged and compromised than many non-traditional Adventists would like to admit. Traditional Adventism has always maintained that 'Sunday sacredness', (which is the trump card of Western and Eastern Catholicism), will be mixed into the blend as a 'holyday' or even perhaps as a 'holiday', the latter of which has been catching on well in the EEC block. Catholicism has undeniably much in common with Islam, much more than both would openly admit.
Some have suggested that behind both these major religions is a common 'mastermind' organization operating in secrecy and working through both these bodies as a means of crowd control to establish their own agenda thereby deceiving the unsuspecting masses ON BOTH SIDES. God’s call to "Come out her my people" seems very appropriate in this context which depicts a fallen Babylon with its false doctrines and all, which have been instrumental in deceiving the masses.
This therefore comes as no surprise when we see how within Freemasonry and the Illuminati/New World Order, how all of them blend together albeit with some bad blood deposited into this 'order out of chaos' strategy which they subscribe to. By the way, it is NOT rocket science to note that Freemasonry,( Illuminati and all), is intrinsically interwoven into the US and First World Politics, and Eastern and Western Catholicism, AND Islam. I have heard that even Osama BL, whom America allegedly has killed, was/is a Freemason too. Blending, blending, blend…BLENDED?
Again I ask: "Can Freemasonry be left out in all of this blending?" It is after all a common ground for many of the 'who's who in the zoo' after all.
♥T
Someone's been watching a bit too much Veith.
Trevor and Horace obviously have their bright light on. As I have said before, when we keep the Big Picture in front of us, we may differ on exactly what we see along the road, but the journey (the Big Picture) is the reason for the trip. Evil always works in synch with a host of alliances that are not on the surface–that's the way Evil has always worked. We should look at the issues that unite them, not on those elements that seem distracting. After all, the main issue that should unite all Sabbath-keepers (not seventh-day-keepers) is witness to the God who deserves our worship, with clear explanations of what is meant by joining those who truly "keep the commandments and the faith of Jesus." Just stating that sentence seems to divide many church members today. Why? Cheers, Herb
There is an old saying which I will slightly modify: "Would you be willing to put your money where your opinions are? May I ask Herb and those who think a Sunday law in the United States is just about to be enacted a question? Would you be willing to give $100 a month to a a separate bank account in the name of a non-profit charity for every month that passes in which no Sunday law is passed?
I will await the responses with great interest.
I am of the belief that the closer we come to the end, the lines between the remaining sides become more clearer than ever. I am not a big advocate of a conspiracy laden world-view, although I concede that some things are going on in the background, I believe that a full, outward display of loyalty/disloyalty (outward shows the inward, see Mark 7:20, 21) is needed to finish this once and for all. If the saints show an outward manifestation of their faith (keeping the commandments), then it is imperative that the opposing side show an outward manifestation of their rebellion and unbelief. I'm no fan of conspiracy theories because such acts are "hidden" and out of view and something we cannot prove. Everything has to be out in the open for this to be finished. Am I wrong?
Quote from Elaine:
"Love to one's neighbor cannot be obeyed if one steals, kills, etc. But to say that all those in the world who do not observe the first four commandments will not obtain salvation is not found in the NT: the Christian's guide."
May I revise this according to a logical understanding: Love to one's neighbor cannot be obeyed if one steals, kills, etc. And love to God cannot be obeyed if one ignores His plea to keep His holy day (that He has sanctified), worships idols, and takes His name in vain (the first four commandments). To say the first four don't count is to say that God doesn't mean as much to us.
If all those who do not obey the fourth commandment will not obtain salvation is to limit heaven to Adventists and orthodox Jews. Not exactly the kind of heaven I want to go to. The Pharisees were meticulous about observing sabbath and God never accused them of ignoring that commandment. But he said that Love was the greatest of all commands.
To say that those who don't obey the fourth commandment believe God doesn't mean much to us is preempt God's judging. He is the one who will judge, not man. Has God given us the directive to preach Sabbath observance to all the world? Is that the Gospel? Where can that definition of the Gospel be found?
Are you unfamiliar with SDA teaching, or are you deliberately distorting it? It has never been the SDA position that those who do not obey the 4th commandment "will not obtain salvation." That will be the case only after Sunday is forced upon the world, and everyone is able to make an intelligent choice. It is not the case now. Those who are living up to all the light they have will be saved. When Sunday laws are forced upon us, and the issues have become clear, those who refuse to keep the Sabbath will be in deliberate rebellion against God. God is not arbitrary. He gives everyone a fair chance.
Elaine,
If God is judge, why don't you let Him be that / do so. You toss judgment around like it's a plenty when you start grinding your axe on Adventists. The NT makes it very clear, if it not of faith, (which includes Sabbath keeping) it is sin. And there are two basic definitions for sin in the NT: transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4, and unbelief (the unpardonable sin) John 16:8.9… The gospel is the power of God to save from ALL sin, except unbelief, and real Sabbath keeping is resting in salvation that the gospel brings.
Stephen and Preston have more then once given you this reference, but here it is once again:
The strength of one's convictions is evidenced only by the willingness to put "skin in the game." Absent that, they are simply words in the wind.
Re: sabbath-keepers vs. seventh-day keepers, how will this be demonstrated?
So what do you have in on this? Which one are you?
This issue about Sabbath keeping is like anything else in the Bible… Motive.
Saturday keepers honor the day and not the Lord of the day… to be saved.
Sabbath keeper honor the Lord of the day, on the day that He set aside for man… resting in the salvation that is already theirs thru the gospel.
Again, whatever is not of faith… that is sin… iow… God will not accept it.
What do I have in on this?
I am willing to bet $5.that no Sunday Law will be passed within the next five years. Since it is possible that I may not be around five years from now, I never expect to see it before 2025.
All those who are so certain that a sunday law is a'comin' lay your bets down now with a date.
So you've now joined to group of the prophets who wage bets on their basis of their doubts and cavaling? 2025? That would make you 100 or their abouts? Like I've said before keep living… we all have to wait and see. Keep your $5…
Since by far, the larger number of Christians observe Sunday as their sabbath, what say you about their salvation? If God will be their judge, why are Adventists so intent on presenting a day as of ultimate importance?
IOW, do Adventists "convert" other Christians to sabbath observance? Doesn't that indicate that it is felt that not to observe sabbath will be to ignore God? What is the intent of Adventists when trying to other Christians? What are they converting them to?
I don't know why you even bother some times. It's as though you recycle your line of questions, especially after folks go about trying to answer them. The bottom line appears to be that you don't agree with SDA prophetic interpretation / understanding. So why do keep trying to pick scabs? Your apparetntly are not going to accept any answer, whatever it may be, if it does not agree with your reason / logic… That's fine with me… but why continue to ask the questions, unless your out to prove a point. If that's the case, what's the point of having any type of dialog? Your mind seems to already be made up.
Most Christians do not keep Sunday as a sabbath. It is their day to attend church, but apart from that there is no obligation to observe the day in any special way. In fact, the majority of Christians are not even required to attend church. Whenever my RC relatives have a big day planned for a Sunday, they go to mass Saturday night so they can both attend church and not have their plans impacted.
It may come as a surprise, but there are many people who find Sabbath to be a good thing, rather than an obligation imposed on them. I have known Lutheran and Anglican priests who keep the Sabbath because it not only is a better option than trying to rest on Sunday, but they find resting on the 7th day works better than any other day. They didn't try to 'convert' anyone to sabbath observance, but they weren't shy about sharing the value they saw in it. Sabbath-keeping does not have to be the legalistic exercise we once made it. That it still is for some Sabbath-keepers says more about them than it does about the Sabbath.
Please explain how it is not legalistic to obey a legal command. Is obeying the speed limit done by suggestion? If one sees the value in observing a sabbath why can't it be a time of their choosing to have a day of rest?
I agree, Brother Foster; it is silly.
Mr. Taylor has challenged "those who think a Sunday law in the United States is just about to be enacted . . . to give $100 a month to a separate bank account in the name of a non-profit charity for every month that passes in which no Sunday law is passed." No one has taken him up on it because none of us believe that a Sunday law "just about to be enacted." But it is clear that current events are moving closer to the scenario outlined in Great Controversy. Who can fail to see that the leading churches of the US are beginning to unite on points which they have in common, and (to use the language of Ellen White) reach over the abyss to clasp the hand of the Papacy? Unless one has their attention focused elsewhere it's hard to ignore the rhetoric directed against the separation of church and state by many prominent religious leaders.
One of the groups which sponsored Rick Perry’s big prayer meeting last summer believes that the first amendment grants religious freedom only to Christians. That a major presidential candidate would associate himself with such a group does not bode well for the future of religious freedom in this country.
If the leading churches of the U.S. are beginning to unite on points in common, would you care to identify them and on what actions? With church attendance continuing to decrease, churches, including the RCC have decreased influence, no matter how they try.
You might be surprised athow much influence a minority can have. The Orthodox Jews in Israel are a small minority, but because of them Israel is a Jewish state, and all Jewish matters are arbitrated by Orthodox rabbis, even though the majority of Israelis are secular. In Australia, polls show as many as 80% agree with euthenasia, but no politician is willing to act on it because the churches, representing a small minority of the population, oppose it. Gay marriage also has majority support, but both major parties rely on winning seats where there is not support for it. It looks likely to be endorsed by the Labor party this year, but the PM will allow a consience vote, which will likely see it defeated. That way they win with the city voters by supporting it, but won't lose with the working class suburban voters (for Labor) or the rural voters (for the Liberal party) who oppose it because it will be defeated. Politics is strange at times, but no one should ever underestimate the effect of a vocal and stubborn minority. Our church history is one place to look to see that in action.
Israel is a very unique situation, and it cannot be compared to any other country. Where is there another country where one's ethnicity and religion are considered the same? There are orthodox areas of Jerusalem where sabbath is strictly observed and anyone who wanders there might run into difficulty–cars are forbidden and are often the target of rock throwing.
You are more familiar with Australia, but it is likely less religious than Britain. We should hope that the U.S. will continue to separate church and state and that SCOTUS will support that.
Which specific denominations are "consevative Protestants"? The Southern Baptists are a separate denomination. In fact it is this group from which Jimmy Carter resigned when they refused to recognize ordination of women.
Whether a president or presidential nominee is pro-choice makes little difference. Increasingly, the population is retreating from any law infringing upon a woman's right to choose. Notice the flip-flop of one of the Republican nominees. The religious right has less influence every year to affect such very controversial issues.
This same group may also object to women's ordination. It's a lost cause when a group talks and fewer listen. As long as Roe v.Wade is still the law of the land, there is little affect of such religious groups. There is often more talk than walk. How many Roman Catholics practice birth control? Their actions are no different than the general population.
Elaine,
If the leading churches of the U.S. are beginning to unite on points in common, would you care to identify them and on what actions?
Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicals_and_Catholics_Together
ECT was not an agreement of "leading churches." It was a statement by individuals.
"The two biggest churches in the U.S., Conservative Protestants (i.e., the Southern Baptists and Evangelicals), and Roman Catholics have formed a strong coalition against abortion."
Is that a bad thing? In the 19th century, Adventists joined with those who formed a strong coalition against slavery. Adventists joined with those who formed a strong coalition against alcohol. Adventists haven't joined this coalition, because our hospitals commit abortion. Hopefully, this will change as more Adventists learn of this shame.
Trevor Hammond
Reply Delete
6 hours ago
In my 'opinionated' post above (hardly influenced by Veith, Mr. Bill Cork! – although he does put forth a tremendous case), which mentioned Freemasonry/Illuminati/New World Order stuff, I didn't mention 'other' players in the 'rule the world' game. Jesuits; Zionists; Cabbalists. The very existence of Israel shows the strength of minority power and the 'capitalist' controlled Globalization initiative in which its ‘puppeteers’ remain the 'powers that be'. Conspiracy? Well how come the US of A Govshop gets some 'private persons' to print paper money, (without collateral which the masses will have to pay back), and in the form of a bailout, GIVE IT TO THE (greedy) BANKERS, who were instrumental in causing the problem in the first place! One should first check out who owns the banks, the media, hollywood?, capitol hill (aka – the puppeteers of government). I would say that admittedly there is but an elite minority who REALLY control the Global scene who slowly but surely (silently/secretly) they have/are playing out their objectives. Here is a quote from just one such group in the 'play':
Content removed – Please show consideration for guidelines – editor CH
Sorry for hogging your blog a bit but it would be very naive to overlook some of the 'agenda' of those we may often brush aside as mere conspiracy as some here do with the Great Controversy narrative.
♥T
I apologize to Mr. Veith for confusing your views with him. You are spouting classical antisemitism, and quoting from a notorious forgery, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. EditorCH didn't catch that one.
ladies and gentlemans enjoy the Sabbath have a happy one. Life is to short to get in arguments that are no helping no one. Looks like a great proportion of the participants already made their mind, so that chance to help any one is pretty small.
Looks like this is a place of entertainment for people who has allot of time in front of the computer. Be care full you need a little bit of fresh air and sun you are at risk of osteoporosis and bone fractures.
Sorry folks, but I must be losing it today. I am trying to figure out what "Editor" is saying (whoever editor is). Bill is hanging on to his mantra that is almost correct. It seems that my Houston friend chooses not to see the subterranean contours that are gradually, on course, at their established speed, in reaching out to all others in uniting, on those common causes that now ride above the once-important lines that once distinguished others in the religio-political world. That sentence is too long but my Houston savant will understand. IMO, the broad lines that some of us have been laying out gently are surely being endorsed by most any news mag and TV newscast. But maybe we should move on to other subjects. And what would they be? Any suggestions? Cheers, Herb
"Editor" only is at the top of that post because the "Editor" edited it. It remains "Trevor Hammond's" post, as noted immediately below that.
Herb, that sentence is a bit too long, and your Houston friend is tired. I hope you aren't endorsing Trevor's quote from "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." I hope you aren't suggesting there's any truth to his reference to antisemitic conspiracy theories. Please, tell us clearly that you don't want to go there.
I for one see nothing in the Bible that endorses looking for secret conspiracies. I don't see it in Great Controversy, either. I don't see any interest in economic theories or secret cabals. In scripture the lines are clear: do you believe in Jesus, do you confess the incarnation, do you have faith in him, do you honor him as Creator–or are you in love with the world, and the self, and the things of the world? GC says those who honor God will keep his commandments while those who reject him will reject his law. The Ten Commandments prohibit bearing false witness against others. So we need to make sure we are telling the truth when we speak of others.
Jesus doesn't endorse this kind of speculation in Matthew 24 or 25–he tells us the basic signs, then tells us in Matthew 25 what our focus needs to be.
I think the question is this–will we form our teachings as Protestants, on the basis of Scripture alone? Will we speak where Scripture speaks and be silent where Scripture is silent? Will we be humble and tentative in our prophetic pronouncements, understanding that history embarrasses many would be prophets?
Bill: No, I certainly have never referred to the Protocols in any of my discussions and never will. Yet I sense something that may or may not be there, in some of your comments. I do wonder how you are watching last-day events play out. Of if there is any that should be called last-day events. I am not trying to make a point, just wondering what social-political-financial contours have any effect on your world view at this time. I covet your experience as a Roman Catholic in the sense that you have something to offer. I hope old Texas is going to get some long-overdue rain soon. Cheers, Herb
Herb, just wanted to make sure on that first point (not that I was worried), given what this guy had brought up. I think Adventism has been blessed by having avoided a turn in that direction. Even Walter Veith, in his conspiratorial salad, never dips into that pot.
But I think I addressed your latter point in an earlier post in this thread, a week ago (it all gets lost here!). Let me cut a couple of snippets from that.
I agree with Herb that there are spiritualist forces within liberal Protestantism, liberal Catholicism, and the New Age movement that have a common agenda. But guess what? Catholics such as Mitch Pacwa, SJ, also are concerned about the New Age threat, and have written strongly about it. I believe that these forces are the thing that will likely dominate in the last struggle, and will prepare the way for the positive reception of messages delivered by apparitions of deceased loved ones, saints, and Mary, culminating in Satan’s final great deception. And I hear conservative Protestants and some Catholics issuing the same warnings. (Some very good critiques of the Medjugorje apparitions have appeared in the most traditionalist Catholic publications).
But I would caution against a too narrow focus on what we think “must happen.” That can give us blinders to very real threats around us. (And then I mention Adventist speculation on Islam that dropped off decades before Islam had a resurgence, and Adventist failures to see Communism and secularism as a threat).
Scripture is full of warnings that the very elect run the risk of being deceived. I think we need to get away from our focus on specific things we fear, and focus instead on the message that God says must be given in the last days: a message to fear God, worship the Creator, and uplift Jesus.
I then emphasized the importance of giving our people proper spiritual formation (not just avoiding false forms), and inculcating authentic, Biblical spiritual disciplines (not dismissing "spiritual disciplines" en masse). We need to strengthen and fortify our people for the struggles that they are facing now, and will face in the future.
For myself, as an historian, I’d suggest we go back to the sources of the “Great Controversy” theme. Go back to Ellen White’s first accounts of the 1858 Lovett's Grove vision, especially volume one of Spiritual Gifts. So that we catch a glimpse of the broad picture as she actually saw it in vision.
And then I mentioned what Ellen White said about speaking positively about other churches, and collaborating where we can with other churches, and how she came down hard on folks in her day who she thought were driven by a misguided zeal untempered by justice or prudence.
I experienced firsthand that Catholicism has not changed as much as some imagined in the aftermath of Vatican 2. It still holds to the supremacy of the pope and the authority of the Magisterium; it still teaches the beliefs of purgatory and indulgences and justification that the Reformation opposed (and these were the beliefs and practices that led the Reformers to identify the papacy with antichrist). It is retreating from the folk and hootenany masses of the 70s and returning to a more traditional liturgy, even allowing any priest who wants to celebrate the pre-Vatican 2 mass the freedom to do so. But, at the same time, it is boldly preaching religious liberty in a way that Catholic extremists such as the SSPX say is a sell-out. It has faithful martyrs who stood up for the Christian faith in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia and Poland and Cuba. It has faithful witnesses who have struggled to keep Christianity alive in many Islamic lands. Let's paint a realistic picture of Catholicism today, not a cartoon. Let's be clear about the differences, but let's not be ashamed of the things we agree on. It's the latter that will allow us to build relationships to Catholics that will make evangelism possible. No Catholic will listen to crude, uninformed, attacks.
I am confused as to why Mr. Bill Cork is putting words in my mouth after I just gave an example of how some claims have been made by others. This was in reference to those who place the GC narrative on a the ‘conspiracy’ theory status, even willing to wager on the enforcement of Sunday Laws. Anti-Semitism? To accuse my comments of this is clearly and overkill. I did not drag Dr. Veith into this either. Though I may not have the same worldview like some of you guys on AT, I am asking questions and seeking understanding as do others and why should such issues be conveniently avoided if they are just fake off-shoot conspiracy theories surrounding Freemasonry and the Illuminati. Yes, I admit I have pushed a few buttons and ruffled some feathers on many issues – but to be accused of anti-Semitism? Those who make anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-Creation, anti-Adventism, anti-Ellen White, etc, etc, flourish freely; but to insinuate and try to silence my questioning on how things may have been ‘BLENDING’ as per blog discussion is excessive in my humble opinion. What about the bailout for the bankers? Is that not kosher stuff too?
♥T
Trevor
How can you quote the work you did, and not expect to be accused of anti-Semitism? It is like quoting Mein Kampf and declaring you have no Nazi sympathies. Do you even know what you were quoting?
"It is like quoting Mein Kampf and declaring you have no Nazi sympathies." Hmm, that's an interesting way of thinking. Let me quote from Mein Kampf: "In a few days I myself knew that I should some day become an architect." That's from Chapter II. Does using that quote make me anti-Semitic? Referencing a particular work does not mean that the one using the reference is in sympathy with the philosophy of the author. And, by the way, the word "Semitic" is one of the most misused word in the English language. A Semite is any descendent of Shem, and can apply to most people in the Middle East, whether they be Jews or Arabs. Although that's probably a moot point these days.
The term, antisemitism, was coined by Germans in the 19th century to show that their hatred of Jews was not due to religious differences but to political and economic concerns and to "scientific" understandings of race. Antisemitism has always meant Jew hatred, nothing else.
Whateever the name, antisemitism has been practiced since Christianity began. Where else but the Bible does one see such derogatory remarks made against Jews?
During the Middle Ages it was believed that the Jews poisoned the wells causing thie dread "Black Plague. It was practiced by Christians in Spain in the 15th century with the forced conversions of both Jews and Muslims or death.
"Antisemitism has always meant Jew hatred, nothing else."
That may be true, but I find it curious that many Jews in North America act like they are antisemitic. They may not realize it, but their attitude toward the state of Israel is similar to that of many non-Jews, who can find nothing but fault with the Jewish state.
The meaning in its correct context includes the Arabs and cannot be word-jacked to exclusive use by one particular group only, even if someone coined it for another use. There are many 'Children of God (Christians in particular) who are anti-Semetic in the broader sense of the word in their hatred for the Muslim people by even using major propaganda to wage war. Maybe I am wrong on the latter: I hope I am wrong.
♥T
RE: "How can you quote the work you did"
I never would have thought that progressives are now elevated to the status of quote police, from down under too, even to the extent of trying to sidetrack and twist the points I have tried to make. Quote police? Thought police? Talk about conspiracy!
♥T
Mr. Riley
You (and some others) made a big deal just the same when I mentioned that there is a posit in evolution theory that claims lesser evolved species of human beings are evidence of evolution which is/has been used as a 'scientific' basis in order to justify racism. You are side-tracking again. Please read what I wrote before I slotted in those excerpts. I selected them in order to make a point which you obviously are making an unecessary hoo-hah about. I thought you guys claimed to be open minded free thinkers but I guess many aren't except when they are in their own groupthink box. I am a Traditional Adventist but it seems I'm looking at the bigger picture here and covering as many avenues in my quest to search for answers. Do you know about this document and the history of it? On the contrary, while it may be viewed by some as anti-Semitic, it claims that those mentioned in it are anti-non Zionist so shouldn't that too be considered in a discussion. My question proposes that 'If something like this is (even a fraction of it) has some truth to it, then we are indeed in a really Great Controversy my friend, bigger than some narrow minded approach in all of this. The same writer makes it clear in the document that not all Jews are Zionists in terms of what he posits. Just goes to show how biased many are towards others opinions and when they are confronted they accuse opposing views of hate speech and make efforts to censor/censure them. AGAIN I ASK, WHAT IF OF ALL THIS IS TRUE? I never suggested that is was! Capiche?
So now there's no Freemasonry, Illuminati, New World Order, Jesuits, Zionists, Cabalists influence in what is happening around the globe and they have no influence on society, government, media, entertainment, religion, economics, education, etc. Yeah right!
♥T
You quoted an antisemitic source. Plain and simple. And yes, I know well the document and its history. It was revealed to be a crude forgery just a few years after it appeared (well over a hundred years ago). It was produced to justify pogroms in czarist Russia. It's been used by every hate group from Palestinians to Neo-Nazis. Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh and Fr. Charles Coughlin used it. The SSPX sells it. It is so notorious I recognized it immediately.
And you didn't cite the source or give a reference, you just threw it out there as if it gave support to your theory. You can't throw out a hand grenade like that and expect the conversation to go forward as if nothing had happened.
And so, when one cites the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," the label, "antisemite" comes with it.
Here's the history of this hateful hoax: http://www.adl.org/special_reports/protocols/protocols_intro.asp
What's the deal with a quote? Are we also going to have to deal with quote police now? Yet I use it cautiously and not as a sneaky hand grenade as you are keen to accuse. I just wanted to make a point which I have already explained in the 'inquistion' you have engaged below. Do you know that people have even called the Bible a hoax – and Christianity, but that doesn't stop us from searching nor should it. Yeah, the pen may be mightier than the sword but it ain't books doing the warmongering around the world – even today. Hitler's (who from reliable sources was anti-Semite)Volkswagen was very popular even in the US yet he committed such atrocities, but still people bought the 'folks wagon'. I illustrate this with a quote from a reliable source (wikipedia):
Is this not support of anti-Semitism let alone using a quote? Come on, don't downplay the reality of the events we see all around us and bury our heads in the sand. If that is your wish then go for it – but don't expect everyone with views and questionings of their own to follow suite.
♥T
And no, let's not play, "What if?" Document fact from reliable sources of what is.
You know very well that there are arguments on both sides who claim to be legit reliable sources which in turn refute each other. I have no dog in that fight Sir. If such behind the scenes (behind these organizations that is, where most subscribers are unaware of such happenings) covert operations go on (and we're not even talking wikileaks here), there is a possible risk of reprisal and I find no need to go that route. I believe God would expose them for what they are, and who knows it may be closer than we think. God can and does use his servants, the prophets too Amos 3:7. There is no need for documented evidence to note that the US of A is – THE – Superpower on our planet today (recession and all) and is a player in all of this BLENDING…
One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to note this.
♥T
If we have to resort to using such sources to support the GC, then it is no longer worth supporting. I still believe it is true, but I don't need conspiracy theories and fake documents to support it.
We don't. GC has nothing in it about Jewish conspiracies. No mainstream Adventist has ever dipped into that pot. It's all about issues within the Christian church. That's its genious. It doesn't point to any external threat, whether Jewish or Muslim, but says that the threats to Christianity came and will come from within.
I hope this can be taken to mean that you believe The Great Controversy narrative of eschatology to be essentially accurate.
The real question is this. Do we believe what we believe about eschatology because Great Controversy says it? Or does Great Controversy build on an interpretation of Bible prophecy that was hammered out by the pioneers through study of the Bible? SDA history says all of our doctrinal points were derived by Bible study. Ellen White agreed. Thus, she also said we can't take the position that we can't learn more, or that all of our positions are without error. Is the Bible our foundation, or not? Can we preach and teach our perspective on eschatology using the Bible alone, or not?
Stephen, would you care to explain Christian eschatology using only the Bible? Please do so, inquiring minds want to know.
Elaine, you may not have noticed that I referenced GC in this context only because my man Bill Cork had previously done so in such a complimentary fashion.
The prophetic imagery and symbols in the books of Daniel and the Revelation of Jesus Christ are meant for purposes of revelation as opposed to those of obfuscation.
If we studied the Bible as we should, we might not have had a need for sermons, or books like GC.
Yes, of course, had we studied by Bible, but the history of Christianity proves that study does not result in the same conclusions. In years past there were many more students of the Bible, so why can it be presumed that a Bible commentator will correctly interpret those passages which are obtuse?
If no one had ever thought to interpret D&R would we know less about Christ? Would we be more loving? Kind, Better Christians? IOW has intepreting D&R been of such importance to Christianity or is it simply a claim for superior knowledge to deciper those books?
Amos 3:7 and Revelation 1:1 indicates that prophecies and interpretations are provided so that believers in God might know what God is doing/permitting; and what He will do/permit.
Having such knowledge should make us more loving and kind to others, shouldn’t it? Having such knowledge should provide us with a better knowledge of Jesus, shouldn’t it?
If one believes that EGW was used by God as a lesser light, to guide toward, or further illuminate the Greater Light; one will come to certain conclusions. If not, one may come to others.
How does a lesser light illuminate a greater light? Does a candle illuminate the sun?
Here’s how: if you are in a room (world) in which the windows are darkened, covered, or are nonexistent (obscuring the heavenly light of Biblical truth), a candle can lead you to the door, or outside of the room to the sunlight.
You may even have chosen to go into the room by voluntarily refusing to read and study the Bible, or you may have been born or placed in the room by circumstances; nevertheless a candle—that is any inspired light or truth coming from the Spirit of God, be it in the form of an inspired sermon, book, or song—can lead to the Greater Light found in His word.
(So Bill, I take it by this question that your response to my previous post to you is probably “not necessarily.”)
Why do you Mr. Cork – Sir, keep bringing up Walter Veith into this discussion? Is it an attempt to get back at him based on what I have posted or what his position is on Catholicism/etc., or whether you assumed I am writing about stuff he speaks of? I have a mind of my own Sir, and though your points have been noted, please let me decide what I believe or question. Even my reference to the GC has been twisted and misrepresented. Again, as before, I say to you that your protocol 'inquisition' in which you have trumped up charges and accusations against me for citing from a 'work' which I have not said I agree with, or disagree with, or whether I support it, or not, but I have merely highlighted the capacity of some who are capable of writing and/or executing such diabolical content in our world today and not specific to Jew, Gentile or Greek. Is that a Cardinal sin perhaps for reading about stuff and asking/seeking about what has/is been going on in our world. Clearly you have overreacted to this! The very fact that such 'work' does exist, and though I detest the awful use of as the propaganda of some wicked people which I strongly disapprove of, yet MY FOCUS IS NOT ON WHO THE CULPRITS ARE, OR WHETHER THE WRITER OR THOSE WRITTEN ABOUT ARE VILLIANS, BUT WHETHER THERE ARE PEOPLE OR ORGANIZATIONS WHO WORK/OPERATE BEHIND THE SCENES AND WHO MAY USE SUCH SIMILAR EXPERTLY STRATEGIC PLANS IN ORDER TO FRAME OTHERS, OR SUCH WORK AS DESCRIPTIVE DETAILS ON HOW TO KNOW HOW TO DO IT, I-R-R-E-S-P-E-C-T-I-V-E of what or who the organization is, but rather are there puppeteers behind them. This has been my posit. My what if, if you please. Hence the citing of such scribblings.
AGAIN I AM SAYING, are there or is there a group or groups of individuals who unbeknown to the general public who are capable of carrying out such atrocities on anybody including our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters. You seem to want to sensationalize this for some weird reason which I don't see the rationale for. Your fixation, Mr. Cork, at drawing attention to negativity of such a document and the distress and hurt it represents is understandable but it is a reality we must face. Somebody wrote it. If it is propaganda (as it does seem to be) then imagine how dangerous the writers of such 'works' really are if similar such persons exist behind the scenes today. I apologize if my search for truth may have offended those who view things differently. It was not meant to.
I, however, am an apolitical person, who has never belonged any political affiliation or party, and don't even vote: I’m not even registered voter. I don't support the warmongering of Jews, Muslims, whoever, however, but I will not be silenced by some critic who uses other people’s opinions and what they access to read or speak of as though I stand in some sort of 'inquisition' with you at pole position with whip, tar and fire, to create propaganda against a seeker of truth who asks too much questions and just like the contents of accusations in such work you twist what I say to create propaganda of your own and rally others to come out in support of such unwarranted insult to one such as I. I'm getting tired of bully pulpit reactionaries and by the way my name ain't hitler! Just 'this guy'…
♥T
You can't seek truth if you accept at face value forgeries that have worked evil. You can't seek truth if you won't look at your sources. You can't take a forgery, a patent falsehood, and say, "What if there really are agencies such as this?" Go back to the simplicity of the Bible. Go back to the teachings of Jesus. Read the sermon on the mount. See what a different spirit is there.
The truth that this exists and that there are those who could write such atrocities and as you say even used to perpetrate evil against others is grounds enough to engage a search for some answers. A large number of German citizens who very well new the sermon on the Mount and the Bible and about Jesus who died on the Cross, but what did that do to avoid the events preceding the 2nd world war (and the first for that matter). Fake or not Sir that fact is that someone wrote it and I asked WHO? Do you know? It wasn't me for sure, as I am not so eloquent in writing evil, Sir. Do you have a 'source' on what Freemasonsor there upper order Illuminati teach???
♥T
Oops – apologies for major typos in previous post.
The truth that this type of work exists and that there are those who could write such atrocities (whoever they are / be / were) and as you correctly mention were even used as propaganda to perpetrate evil against others is grounds enough to engage a search for some answers. A large number of German citizens who very well knew the sermon on the Mount and the Bible and about Jesus who died on the Cross, but what did that do to avoid the events preceding the 2nd world war (and the first for that matter)? While the work may have been a part of the propaganda to excuse and justify the evil committed by Germans against the Jews, the truth is that is was evil people doing the horrific killing and so-called Christians at that. My point is that this work is too detailed to be brushed off lightly put on taboo status as it is a well known work that has been around for a long time. Question is, who will use or implement its evil strategy which it comprehensively documents? Yes, anti-Semitics have used it and probably wrote it anyway – but as I have said before, THAT IS NOT MY POINT. Fake or not Sir the fact is that someone wrote it and I ask WHO? Do you know? It wasn't me for sure, as I am not so eloquent in writing evil, Sir.
Do you have a 'source' on what Freemasons or their upper order Illuminati teach??? Or perhaps explain what the pyramid with a separated apex and what the eye signifies on the US dollar Bill? There is a lot going on around the world today and we need to filter what we can and make the best of it. But with all due respect Sir, you are not the keeper of what is truth, and neither am I for that matter, nor AToday. The Bible does offer a recluse from such evil activity, and in Christ Jesus we need not fret about what tomorrow may bring, but that doesn't stop all the evil and lies in our world today, does it? Have all these players no influence in the world around us or are they just all dodgy sources of forgery and fakes? Or are they all just anti- whatever! If you have no answers, I will understand. Who has?
♥T
"Fake or not Sir the fact is that someone wrote it and I ask WHO?"
I gave that to you. It was a minor official in the czarist government of Russia, who wanted to make Jews a convenient scapegoat. This is well documented.
If you want to know what Freemasons teach, their webpages are plentiful and Albert Pike's "Morals and Dogma" can be found in many used bookstores. It is no secret that the revolutionary founders of the US were largely masonic, hence the presence of masonic symbols. William Miller was a mason, too. I wonder if it had any influence on his approach to the Bible? No one has ever done that study.
As to the Illuminati? A myth of mythmakers.
Go back to Scripture. All Jesus ever said about such things is in Matthew 24 and 25, Mark 13, and Luke 21. That's the starting point for Christians. And Jesus told us in Matthew 25 what we are to be doing in the meantime.
Thanks for the info refresher Mr. Cork, although your William Miller was a Freemason story, may just be a stretch. I have come across some who even claim Ellen White was one. Not that have anything against them, but that there are many who have been deceived by its intrigue and secrecy and which are not aware of what the higher orders are up to. I have to mention this and won't delve too much and raise sources etc into this as I am aware that if such is true there is possible danger. I make no war with flesh and blood. My mention of such organizations was not to name and shame individuals but to highlight that such do exist, even right under our noses. Yeah, the symbolism may not mean much to you but they are intriguing and they are there. Ancient mystical religious symbols find their way into a secular state currency and government and there’s nothing to it. Yeah right! No need for soothsaying’s Sir, to brush aside those who query such. You can believe what you want but the fact that they are there is noteworthy. There are many influential people out there who, as far I am concerned, who are capable of making major changes on our planet and not just limited to the ones I have mentioned, as the possibilities are many.
♥T
"your William Miller was a Freemason story, may just be a stretch"
You should a biography of him sometime. It's old news.
Major global players don’t work alone as single individuals. We can’t put it passed them (any of the many political, economic, social or religious bodies of which I posited just a few players) or a combo of them to easily influence legislation like Sunday laws. Eph 6:12 reminds us that our war is not against flesh and blood but against the rulers of the darkness of this world, who ultimately are under the control of satan. Eph 2:2 also reveals that satan controls the hearts of those who disobey. 1Pet 5:8 calls us to be vigilant with regards to satan's advances and attacks. Job 1:7 shows that satan is actively engaged with the happenings on our planet and he does use human instruments to carry his diabolical schemes out John 8:44. As long as such satan controlled people exist, there will always be something up their sleeve. Obviously no-one will openly put their hands up and be candid about knowing or unknowingly serving the master of darkness.
♥T
I live in a very different world, where the lamb who was slain has begun his reign, and he holds human history in his hands, and he is the victor. So I don't worry about such things.
That's what many of them say too. That's why the eyesalve is needed to 'discern' between truth and error Rev 3:18.
♥T
RE: "(And then I mention Adventist speculation on Islam that dropped off decades before Islam had a resurgence, and Adventist failures to see Communism and secularism as a threat)."
———-
Ah – Perhaps herein lies the basis as to why Mr. Cork is so militant against what some of us point out. He may have a fixation that Islam may be the 'enemy' of Christ like some others have alluded here, yet I say that it may just be a diversion by certain 'players' to make us look in the wrong direction. Adventists have never taught that Communism was the anti-Christ nor Islam, even from the GC narrative or the Bible. It was the Sunday Christians and the Western side of the iron curtain that harped on this propaganda that communism was evil and anti-Christ. But their sandcastle crumbled and fell. They even wrote books propaganda books to justify the war on communism which are probably in dustbins today. Today they is a war on ??? Our interpretation and understanding as a Church of end-time prophecy is strong and based on the Bible. The GC narrative cuts it fine. When the iron curtain fell I wasn't surprised – just amazed at how accurate traditional Adventist interpretation is. Hence my posit that there's no holding back Sunday Laws, it's just a matter of time…and hence the need to warn others: that's what the handing out of the GC seeks to do – warn others from all walks of life and faith about these events.
♥T
"harped on this propaganda that communism was evil and anti-Christ."
Propaganda? Are you saying it wasn't evil? It killed how many tens of millions of people, and is still doing so?
Almost every nation on the planet has got their fair share of stink Sir. Some have found ways of sweeping all the bloodshed under the carpet quite nicely and then pat themselves on the back whilst pointing fingers at the guys next door. Stalin's killings for example has made me very angry too Sir, but so has the diabolical slave trade; the first and second world wars; the systematic murder of the American Indian population and the herding of the survivors into reserves together with the nasty treatment of them by the locals (even today); the evils of the greedy European Colonialists that greedily plundered and systematically raped India; Africa; South America; and other parts of the world; the Crusades and then the current warmongering around our planet adds to all this craziness — yeah lots of bloodshed methinks. Yeah…some perpretrated by so-called 'christian' nations too I might add. It's all just plain ol' fashioned sin Sir, that's why the communists need the Saviour too, just like everybody else, including you and me.
♥T
"conspiracy theories " won't help us to develop a loving relationship with Jesus . Fear is not the way to go . At the same time we should not ignore the signs of the second coming . We should not be "dogmatic on certain things , there are many things that we don't know how they will end . At the end there will be many surprises , we should be careful the way we deal with unfulfilled prophecy .
My raising up of so-called 'conspiracy theories' was in response to some who have implied that the GC may be one such 'conspiracy' in terms of the Sunday law issue (by even suggesting placing 'sucker' bets to make their point). Yes, whilst fear may be a relevant factor in such times Pastor Reinosa, I wouldn't have even mentioned such 'conspiracies' as my real name and contact details are known to AT as well as my IP address and tracert to my pc which I'm sure they'll be able to track me down easily hahaha lol ☺. The organization's I have mentioned (and others not mentioned) and question, regarding their influence on social/political and religious issues cannot just be dismissed as just conspiracy theories as they DO exist and function fully in meeting their known and unknown obejectives. The Freemasons for example have influenced US politics and government right from the start and cannot be written off when considering the USA in prophecy. My posit only was that such may very well influence the decisions that are enacted by the 'powers that be' and therefore effect the Blending pertaining to this blog. This is not a 'witch-hunt' to point fingers but just to note that there are agents of the powers of darkness out there and they are very active and that is no conpiracy Eph 6:12.
♥T
Funny, this thread is getting similar to the one in Spectrum about Veith.
Trevor, may I recommend to you an article written by a Pastor friend of mine Larry Kirkpatrick. He runs http://www.greatcontroversy.org and the article URL is: http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/kir-conspiracy.php
He writes an analysis mainly of Bill Hughes' book, "The Enemy Unmasked" which deals with Jesuit conspiracies. He also analyzes the mentality of those forwarding "conspiracy theories" and its detriment to the mission of the Adventist church. It is written from a "conservative" viewpoint.
Also a quote I posted on the Spectrum boards:
"Walk firmly, decidedly, your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace. You may be sure that pure and undefiled religion is not a sensational religion. God has not laid upon anyone the burden of encouraging an appetite for speculative doctrines and theories. My brethren, keep these things out of your teaching. Do not allow them to enter into your experience. Let not your lifework be marred by them." {CCh 325.6}
Why focus on the speculative when we have an abundance of written and documented evidence?
Signs of the times abound!
We do have documented evidence of massive earthquakes, natural disasters, wars and famines, events that multiply as the years pass. We have documented evidence of crashing markets, diving economies and repression of civil and religious liberties. But the exact mechanisms behind such events are not proven to be the "freemasons" or "jesuits" or "illuminati". To teach anyone speculative doctrines and theories is not to anyone's benefit. They increase paranoia among the faithful in a time where instead they need extreme mental sobriety to stand in tribulation and testing.
In Christ,
Lemuel S.
Hey, Lemuel Sapian – Sir, I have checked out your Pastor Friend's rebuttal of the book, "The Enemy Unmasked" – which I think is rather hostile in tone and content (in my opinion). For example the opening lines of this link (and to think this was part of a sermon?) kind of stuck in my head: "
I don't have a dog in this fight as I haven't read the book he attacks, but from what I have gathered, this is just a case of "my belief and study of this issue is better than yours except I can use the pulpit to lambast you and publish it on the net". I for one wouldn't debunked all just yet as "the spiritual wickedness in high places" Eph 6:12 is an indicator that something is going on, although, all is not known yet. I usually keep an open mind when it comes to majoring in the minors so to speak. A wild guess would allow me to say that perhaps, even within Adventism, there may be a practicing Freemason or two; and who can guarantee that no Jesuits (or anyone else for that matter) have not infiltrated the SDA Church – who knows? The rebuttal is therefore more concerned about image and look; and how and what we say to save face; and about the Pastors good arguments not been 'comical' to the public eye as Hughes is. Subjective to say the least as per these quotes from the website.
This shouldn't distract from what I have been saying here about the INFLUENCE of such organisations in politics, economics, education, government, culture, society, religion, etc. With the mess our society is in in terms of sin and depravity, I would hardly call that comical or funny especially when thousands go to Christless graves almost everyday. Hughes I think just reminds us of this in his own way and your Pastor friend too – of course!
♥T
Thanks Lemuel and those others for responding to my questions raised without 'condeming' me for raising them and just because I broke the silence on some taboo subject it seems. By the way, I have mentioned Freemasonry (and mentioned some other similiar org's) on some other blog's previously (at least two times before) and got a 'silent night' when I mentioned them before. I'll take a wild guess and say that this taboo subject is intentionally avoided and not at all brought up on AToday. (My previous mention of it was without responses). I understand that these kind of issues are not top of the list for most Christians (even myself for that matter although I don't avoid them but I too am checking out the cultural Adventist scene and their worldviews and beliefs).
I am open minded so I will still refer to most articles regarding secret societies as SO-CALLED conspiracy theories as we really don't know 'who's who in the powers that be zoo' AND if all this is true. I will take a look at those links when I have a chance. Dr. Walter Veith would have cropped up sooner or later in Adventist circles and though he has been disparaged by some compromised pockets within Adventism he is at least honest and quite clued up about such stuff – also, he can and will hold his ground as a scientist (zoologist?) and as an Adventist. Also, at least I can see that not ALL American people are in a state of denial regarding the ACTIVE behind the scenes role of such secret societies and their 'dodgy' agenda's. Who cares? – one may say, but we should at least BEWARE of such and fulfil our role as a Christian community to love them enough to warn them and too and CALL THEM OUT of those seductive power hungry machiavellian type agenda's where subscribers don't know all about what they subscribe to, of which, in essence, deceit is a key player – and we know that the devil is 'the' great deceiver.
I have been challenged by some here who have even attempted to scare of others with the threat that they will be labeled as not been politically or socially correct and therby insulted for entering into such discussion. Lastly, let me be frank: if some are fearful that they may be killed or persecuted for rasing such discussion then I am at greater risk for doing so, therefore I have avoided taking too much of worms out the can for now. Social engineering Sir, is a possibility, which utimately controls our thinking to such an extent we can believe darknes to be light and lies to be truth: a strong delusion if you please – 2Thess 2:9, 10, 11 (2Thess 2:11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,)
Apologies to Dr. Douglass for my so-called conspiracy deliberation on his blog and I hope I haven't crossed the wires of the honourable Editor CH – again. It has been rather challenging expressing one's views on an openminded blog, especially when one has different views and has comments frequently deleted yet others are allowed to prosper. Good for them I guess and no skin off my back. I may take the off ramp soon so don't sweat too much guys – I am only checking out the scene that's all. Maybe I tell you before my orderly off-ramp exit how I got here on this site – I promise distinguished learned men and women of 'blogosphere' it will just be my two cents worth as usual. Cheers!
Yeah in Christ Sir – always by His Grace – Blessings
♥T
Oh, by the way Mr. Cork, I didn't even mention the tyrants of pagan Rome who persecuted the early Christian Church and then sadly too, how they were further persecuted during the DARK AGES, yet again, by Rome, albeit this time in the form of a 'baptized' tyrant. Yet it is the blood of those precious Saints who were slaughtered in their thousands for their faith which has watered the Christian Church. Praise God for their powerful example of faith and their remarkable resoluteness in not bowing down to the dictates of Rome and its creed and commandments of men.
Communism Sir, doesn’t fulfill the role of a de-facto religio-political power as I see it and therefore doesn’t qualify as the anti-Christ revealed in prophecy (even though they have committed their fair share of atrocities and have persecuted Christians too). Capitalism on the other hand comes packaged within a religio-political framework under the guise of a secular garb, geared to control the masses and condition them to bow down to the ‘powers that be’. Babylon religion may very well be still alive and kicking within this Trojan vehicle which is and has been always administered by the ‘powers that be’. Somewhere in all of this, Protestants have lost their voice of PROTEST and reached across the abyss and clasped the hands of Rome and created an image of false worship. Hence the call for God’s people to come out of Babylon. Maybe this is the small work assigned to those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
♥T
Trevor
Sociologically, the Communist Party of the USSR and the SDA church are exactly the same sort of organisation with an amazingly similar structure. Both are organised around an ideology that determines all else. The ideology is, of course, very different. Communism is nothing less than a secular religion. The politics are secondary, and were necessary to achive the religious ends. I am not sure it is included in Biblical prophecy, but it is indeed a religio-political power.
Well, Mr. Riley mate, in my opinion, true Christianity has much more in common with Communism than with the traits of Capitalism.
RE: Your Comment – ["Communism is nothing less than a secular religion."] – this may be true in terms of the teachings of Marx and Engels to a certain extent and the ideals they set forth in providing a practical approach to an alternative of what religion aspires to; but, in terms of the variations found within this socialist context, in the likes of Lenin, Trotsky , Stalin, etc., there really was no real religion at its core – just Soviet Socialist politics without any religious connotations except that which is found in the propaganda of the West in order to trump up charges and label them anti-Christ (in terms of the ‘man of sin’ revealed in Bible prophecy 2Thess 2:3, 4).
The pieces just don’t fit the Communist puzzle. No, there has to be a REAL religio-political power currently in existence which comes out of the last Kingdom found in Daniel 2 – which is Rome. An image of this religio-political power will be set up which will cause all men to bow down and worship this image of the beast, except for a remnant of course who as I have said before KEEP the commandments of God and HAVE the testimony of Jesus Christ Rev 12:17, Rev 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Rev 13: 14, 15, Rev 13:18, Rev 14:9, 10, 11, 12, Rev 15:2, Rev 16:13. The Sabbath WILL be the ultimate test which will distinguish those who worship the beast and its man-made image; and those who worship the Creator of Heaven and Earth. 'Come out of her my people' is part of this last appeal to the world during this significant time.
♥T