| Author | Message | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Timo, I must have that paper somewhere, but all my stuff like that's in storage. You're right, though. I don't think the RCC is going to do what EGW and the Great Controversy say. The world has changed dramatically since GC was written. And, by the way, her view wasn't unique at all, certainly not of biblically prophetic status. In fact, I don't think she said anything unique at all at the time. The world of Protestant conservativism of the time was anti-Catholic. I'm only trying to say, Hey, guys! In our disillusionment with EGW, the SDAs and SDA doctrine and history, let's not lose sight of the truth. You don't need the SDAs to discover the truth. In fact, it was historians like Ronald Numbers, Ronald Graybill, Walter Ray, and host of others, who brought this stuff to light in the first place. If you want my opinion, the best way to look at it is this: The SDAs reacted inappropriately to the perceived threat of the Roman Catholic presence in America. They then constructed a paranoid, if not schizophrenic, view of history and especially prophecy. We need to move on from HERE, not from way back THERE. To summon a cliche: That was then, this is now. Jude | ||
| Lynn W |
"Is anybody reading this out there? Does anybody care?" Always. Thanks. | ||
| Maryann |
Lynn, Yes, I care. Just don't have my questions and comments formulated enough to cut loose on you. Maryann | ||
| Colleentinker |
Jude, thank you for your synopsis. How interesting! A couple of years ago Richard went to an RCC website that appeared to be making official church statements. He found a quite objective analysis of most major denominations and movements. The analyses included the RCC's position regarding these churches. Richard's biggest surprise was their analysis of Seventh-day Adventists. I cannot quote, but the gist of their explanation was that Adventists are an acceptable church, and (get this) the Catholic church recognizes Adventist baptism! Adventism's main problem, the site said, is that there is a strong anti-Catholic feeling among the membership that the RCC considers quite unfortunate. They do not consider the church to be dangerous or an enemy. The same site, incidentally, said that Evangelicals are dangerous. The RCC complains that Evangelicals say a person can be saved individually, apart from a church, while the RCC says one must be associated with the church to be saved. The site said that Evangelicalism is popular and is spreading rapidly in certain areas, and the RCC considers that to be a problem. None of this is to create a new brand of RCC-paranoia. I think by now most of us have experienced the amazing reality of God with us, no matter what. We do not need to fear. My main point, though, is that I'm convinced that in spite of it's public anti-Catholic rhetoric, the SDA church is not far from Rome. In fact, I suspect that they have certain connectionsówhat kind, I cannot say absolutely. I do know that under the leadership of the last GC president, Adventists and Catholics did cooperate in some fund-raising efforts and in dividing of profits. Whether this cooperation happened officially or unofficially, I can't say for sure. I think the boundaries blurred. At any rate, what we learned via Great Controversy is surely not the reality we can expect. | ||
| Cas |
Hey Jude!, Do you know why there are some Adventists that say, we have never been closer to the beginnings of Sunday Laws?? Is there something going on I am not aware of? I know of someone who watches every move the Pope makes and is just sure every step and action is evil intent. Does anyone know if there is anything going on in the RCC that would make SDA's so skiddish now? | ||
| Lynn W |
They've always been skiddish. When John F. Kennedy won the Presidential election, they were all convinced that he would pass the Sunday laws & the end was near because we had a Catholic President. He would be the one to "join hands across the ocean with the Pope." | ||
| DebbieS |
Hey Jude, (Isn't there a song like that?) In all seriousness, Jude, I was wondering, since you are such a prolific writer, and since you have so much knowledge in the areas of religion and history (fascinating knowledge), what exactly are your degrees in? Just being nosy. Also, in regard to the RCC saying that only priests are part of the "true church." Does this mean that they believe only priests are saved and going to heaven? I've been reading "Foxe's Book of Martyrs," and as a result, I have a new found interest in learning more about the Papacy, historically and currently. While reading Foxe's book, there is one thing I have particulary found interesting. This is that, despite the numerous murders the Papacy carried out during the inquisition, none were related to what day the people were going to church. What is your opinion regarding this? I really appreciate all of the time and energy you are spending on the Papacy, and on its relationship to the SDA church. It is mind-boggling to think that the RCC and SDA church are possibly sharing a common interest, especially considering the blatant accusations by SDA's regarding the supposed future "National Sunday Law." It is true that in many ways they are similar, however. So, when you get right down to it, it's really not all that surprising. Thanks for all of your energy and insight, Jude. I look forward to hearing what else you have to say regarding this issue. | ||
| Bruce H |
Hello Debbie S So you are new here? Could you tell us a little bit about yourself. | ||
| Lynn W |
"none were related to what day the people were going to church." Good point Debbie. That's something the SDA should remember. | ||
| DebbieS |
Hi Bruce, About myself. I live in Loma Linda, CA with my husband Mark, who was raised as a 4th Generation Adventist. My Father n law is a dentist and is is also former adventist (anti-adventist would be a more precise description). Several of us have been attending the Redlands FAF meetings for quite some time. Does that help? Debbie | ||
| Bruce H |
Hi Debbie I did not know it was you. I can not remember hearing from you on this forum before. About your father in law and his anti-adventism, I do not know if he even know's he comes across that way? Glad to hear from you. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Hi Debbie, It's good to talk to you on e-mail after having talked to you at FAF meetings. Welcome to the website! Glad you've decided to try it out. Yes, there is a song, "Hey Jude!" by, I think, the late John Lennon of the Beatles, written, I think but could be wrong, about the birth of his baby boy. At any rate, it is a truly wonderful song and I love it. As for academic degrees I have a B.A. in theology from La Sierra Univesity and an M.Div. in systematic theology from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan. Regarding RCC priests, yes, they alone comprise "the church" in the branch of RCC theology known as ecclesiology. All other Catholics -- and that includes YOU, Debbie, since RCC recognizes the baptism of other Christian churches -- are "faithful" to the church, which is the one and only true church that exists on the planet. The "faithful" are indeed saved and are going to heaven, but their salvation is mediated (provided or given) only through the RCC, to whom Jesus Christ gave "the keys to the gates of heaven and the gates of hell." This means if you are going to go to "the heaven above the clouds" at all, you will be going there via the RCC. You can think of the RCC as a sort of "Jacob's ladder to the stars," if you like. About the historical Inquisition, I think it is probably true that none of the tortures or executions were carried out over what day the "heretics" kept, the seventh day, for example. This is another little factoid that SDAs are pleased to cover up. Sabbath-keeping, if any, among "heretics" was simply not an issue then. The RCC couldn't care less whether or not you worship God by attending church services on the seventh-day Sabbath. And to my knowledge, it never has. If you were a Catholic back then and did not attend mass on Sunday, but rather held private worship in your home on the seventh-day Sabbath, your priest would become concerned. He would probably not treat you a heretic, however, because you wouldn't be considered a threat. He might think you deluded and eccentric and "labor with your soul" to convince you that, "Hey, the church changed the sacredness of the day from Saturday to Sunday." But if you then decided to do a Joan of Arc and martial hundreds of thousands of believers under a "BACK TO THE TRUE BIBLE SABBATH" banner, then you would become a threat and you would probably be hunted, defeated in battle, captured, and after a church trial, burned at the stake. But there was no such movement during the Inquisition. The primary issue was over righteousness by faith alone. If you want to learn more about the development of the papacy, search for "ultramontanism" on Infoseek or some other engine. Also "Reformation history," and, of course, "Spanish Inquisition." I think the one thing most similar between the RCC and the SDA is each one claims exclusivity to being "the one true church" on earth. There are many other similarities, but this one seems to be "the killer." My personal opinion about a future "National Sunday Law" issue is that it is a Satanic diversion from the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you get that right, you get everything else right too. God bless you all the time, Debbie. See you and your husband at FAF. Jude | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
High Debbie, Here is a part of Constantine's Sunday Law of 321 A.D.: "One the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for gain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. (Given the 7th day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them the second time." Codex Justinianus, lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; translated in History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaff, D.D., (7-vol.ed.) Vol. III, p.380. New York, 1884 Notice that 1. Agricultural work was not prohibited on Sunday. 2. Nor is worshipping on the seventh-day Sabbath. 3. This is a labor law, insuring a "day off" for employees. These little details are usually omitted from SDA "evantgelistic" presentations on the so-called "transfer of sacredness" from the seventh day to the first. | ||
| DebbieS |
Thanks Bruce and Jude! Jude, I think the reason marytred Christians weren't concerned over the papacy changing the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday is because they recognized that this was not a foundational issue. God's ultimate purpose lies in restoring humans to Himself through the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Satan's goal is to thwart the purposes and plans of God. Thus, these Christians concerned themselves with things that interefered with the true light of the gospel. The things these Christians spoke out against included the teaching that the pope replaced Christ (outright blasphemy); the teaching that the communion pieces became the real flesh and blood of Christ after the priest prayed over it; the teaching that the church had ultimate authority over matters of faith, and thus was the only one worthy of having access to the Word of God; the worship of images; the deification of Mary. These Christians seemed to recognize that these teachings took away the saving power of the gospel, while the Sunday teaching did not. It seems to me that worshipping on the Sabbath wouldn't have been a threat to the Papacy because this had nothing to do with the true gospel of Christ, and thus, would have HAD NO POWER to usurp their authority. Of course, the truth of God's word is sharper than any double-edged sword, and it judges the attitudes and thoughts of the heart (Hebrews 4:12). This, it seems, is what caused the church leaders to feel the need to martyr these dear, uncompromising Christ followers. These devoted brothers and sisters were faithful in using the sword of the Spirit to defend themselves against the lies of the church (flaming arrows of the evil one), and those in power despised every word. As you say, Jude, the National Sunday Law teaching appears to be a Satan-inspired diversion of the true gospel. Many of the teachings of the papacy appear to also be Satan-inspired diversions. However, the Sunday rest teaching hardly seems to be one of them. Thus, it seems to me that the National Sunday Law teaching could never truly be threatening to the papacy, either then, now or in the future. | ||
| Colleentinker |
Hi, Debbie! I'm glad you joined us here! Jude, as always, thank you for your insights and information. I'm convinced that Satan has a compelling deception for every gift from our Father. Holy days and their attending honor and legislation are powerful detractions from our true Sabbath Rest, Jesus. | ||
| Lynn W |
I think Hey Jude was written to comfort John Lennon's son during John's divorce. So something the RCC and SDA have in common, only they can be saved, and even they're not sure of their own salvation. | ||
| ONUMA21 |
I am struggling with the Sabbath day, is it biblical? Is it still necessary to hold one day as the "true" Sabbath? I realize that Jesus gave us rest, but does that mean to exclude the day. If the day was given when Adam and Eve were created, it really doesn't have anything to do with the commandments. I'm so confused. I do not accept the teachings as Ellen White, I never have, but the Sabbath is a real issue for me. I have left the Adventist Church, because I don't believe in their doctrine. The Sabbath is my true concern. Please help me. ONUMA21 | ||
| Lydell |
Welcome to the site. We can answer your questions here. But it could profit you much more to go to this website and read the material there. http://www.gospeloutreach.net/brin.html It's very long. But it will give you a good overall grasp of the whole issue. As an SDA you were accustomed really to looking at the question of the sabbath by beginning at the Old Testament and working forward. The author of this article points out that this is contrary to what the disciples would have done. Rather they took what they had experienced with Christ and looked backward at the OT to see what that had all meant. In otherwords, they looked at the real thing (Christ) instead of the shadow pointing toward him. For you to be able to dump the error in your head that was placed there in Adventism, your going to need to get a grasp of the whole issue of the law vs. grace. See you can't really just look at the issue of the sabbath. Instead, you have to back up and find out what was the purpose of the law. The most eyeopening thing I read was that in Gal. 3:24, the word that is commonly translated as "tutor" in the verse actually had a much deeper meaning. The word in the original referred to the "boy leader". This was the servant who was trusted with the oversight of the master's son. He carried around a stick. He didn't actually teach the son, but rather took the son to the true teacher. So the law was put in place to take us to Christ. If you look back at v. 19 you find that we are told that the law was added "until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come." Now that we have the real teacher living inside us, we don't need to keep looking at those tablets of stone. While you are there in Gal. 3, look back up to v. 17. According to that, the law wasn't even given until 430 years after the promise of the Seed had been given to Abraham. So that pretty much shoots down the argument that the sabbath command was given to Adam and Eve. By the way, you won't find that anyone in the book of Genesis was keeping a sabbath day. | ||
| Jude the Obscure |
Dear ONUMA21, Welcome to formeradventist.com. I don't have a full answer to your post at this time, but I can offer a few points. Maybe other FAFers can chime in and help too. 1. Genesis doesn't say that the Sabbath was given to Adam and Eve. It says only that God rested on the seventh day. 2. The word "Sabbath" is not found anywhere in Genesis. 3. If you go strictly by Scripture, the Sabbath wasn't given to human beings until the time of the Exodus when it was given as "the sign" of the covenant of laws given to Moses for the children of Israel. 4. God gave covenant laws to Noah (Gen. 17) with the rainbow -- not the Sabbath -- as "the sign", and one would think that if God had intended Noah and his decendents (until the time of Moses) to keep the Sabbath, he would have given that commandment to him. But he didn't. 5. Paul says (Romans 14) that there's nothing wrong with Seventh-day Adventists and others to keep holy any day they like, such as the first day, the seventh day, or "all days alike." Doesn't matter. 6. But Paul also says in Colossians 2, that the Sabbath is only a shadow cast by Jesus Christ. And if you've found Christ, you no longer need the shadow to point to him. And, in fact, he even says to let no one judge you negatively if you don't keep it. Okay, somebody else can have the floor now. Let's not let ONUMA21 down. Jude | ||
| Lynn W |
Great posts. Can't improve, but I would like to add. "is it biblical?" Yes, but according to Gal. 3, it was given 430 AFTER the promise was given to Abraham, UNTIL the seed (Jesus) should come. So it had a definite beginning and end point. Not only was it not given to Adam & Eve in Eden, but when God cursed them with labor, no exception clause was made for a day of rest. The Bible says God rested, but no commands were given regarding the sabbath till Exo. 16. Adventists always point to the fact that the 4th commandment starts with the word "remember," then insist this means you have to jump back to Gen. 1 to find out what to remember. This is not so. To remember, you only have to go back to some time before. They never mention that Ex. 16 comes before Ex. 20. As Lydell said, look to the new covenant to see what the old was pointing to. |
