Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 11:29 pm:

---

quote:

I AM A FORMER SDA WHO HAS LEFT THE CHURCH DO TO "JESUIT INFILTRATION" INTO THE SDA CHURCH!!! I HAVE A SERIOUS DILEMA FOR YOU CONTEMPLATE CONCERNING THE SABBATH AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE MARK OF THE BEAST!!! IN THE BOOK GREAT CONTROVERSY ... IT PREDICTS A TIME WHEN MOST PROTESTANTS WOULD CHANGE THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE CHURCH OF ROME FROM A POSITION OF DISTRUST OF THE ROMAN CHURCH TO AN ALL OUT CHANGE OF HEART RESULTING IN COOPERATION AND THAT TOGETHER THEY WILL PUSH FOR SUNDAY LEGISLATION .... I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU CURRENT POSITION IS CONCERNING THE GREAT CONTROVERSY!!! BUT I CAN PROVE TO YOU THAT AFOREMENTIONED QUOTE IS VALID AND TRUE, IN 1960 JFK WHO WOULD LATER BECOME THE FIRST CATHOLIC PRESIDENT STATED IN A SPEECH QUOTE "I BELIEVE IN AN AMERICA WHERE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS ABSOLUTE" .. HE GAVE THIS SPEECH TO A GROUP OF "PROTESTANTS" TO ENSURE THEM THAT HE WOULD BE A PRESIDENT WHO "NOT" OBEY THE POPE, THOUGH HE WAS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH.... BUT LOOK AT THE PRESENT ATTITUDE OF THE PROTESTANT CHURCHES TOWARDS ROME ,, GOOGLE THE FOLLOWING VIDEO "THE NEW WORLD ORDER-THE DEVIL IN THE VATICAN PART-36" AND THEN READ/GOOGLE THE" E.C.T". AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROME AND PROTESTANTS ... AND ALSO GOOGLE PROTESTANTS WHO CURRENTLY ARE SEEKING SUNDAY BLUE LAW LEGISLATION... ALSO GOOGLE POPE CALLS FOR SUNDAY LEGISLATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.... THEN YOU CAN DECIDE FOR YOUR SELF, WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND GOD BLESS!!! Mr F-----/U.S.A.

---

---

quote:

Hi Mr. F-----,

Two favors to ask: First, in future comments, could you leave contact info or a link where I can reach you? Second, could you *not* write in all capital letters? It's very difficult to read (and sounds like SHOUTING). Thanks.

There are several misconceptions in the topics you've raised and the question(s) you asked. I'll try to briefly summarize:

Firstly, protestants in general are usually not tied to a denominational directive. That is to say, whatever decisions are "made at the top" are not automatically accepted throughout the ranks of the churches. The "top" is generally representative instead of leading. Members look to the Bible for truth and faith, not to the statements of denominational leaders. This is particularly true in the growing trends of churches becoming "non-denominational". Hierarchies are being left behind (thank God!).

In contrast is Roman Catholicism which is probably the most famous hierarchial church system. Since ancient times, the Bishop of Rome (that is, "the pope") has been more than just a representative, but is said to hold the "office" of Peter (etc.). He is looked to for final authority on matters. Seventh-day Adventism works in a very similar way. The GC is looked to for authoritative statements and final say on matters. While there is great flexibility on certain things (but not on others), the hierarchial structure of SDA remains intact and important, and demands a certain submission from even the most diverging of its churches.

Now "off the radar" of Adventism is the case of the Eastern Orthodox churches. The Orthodox church is just as ancient as Roman Catholicism, and claims more members than protestant churches in the world. However, Orthodoxy has no "pope". Authority doesn't reside in one person, but in bishops and more importantly, in tradition. The bishops merely hold to the traditions passed onto them from the "church fathers" of the first millenium. (In a similar way that Judaism holds onto the traditions passed through the Mishna & Talmud, etc.)

I mention all of this to illustrate a fallacy in the question/topic you brought up. The fallacy is assuming that supposed agreements between "leaders" means that whole churches are going to adopt some measure such as "a Sunday law". Leaders in protestantism are not dictators, but are representatives. In Catholicism and Adventism, however, the leader/GC is more dictatorial. The rapidly growing reality of "non-denominationalism" seriously undercuts the SDA belief in protestants "uniting" under Rome.

Secondly, as "anti-Rome" as Adventism is, it does not hold a candle to how "anti-Rome" many protestants are, particularly those from Calvinistic/Reformed churches (which I would guess are about half of churches that call themselves "protestant" -- and are the most vehement about "being protestant"). Reformed churches base themselves on the teaching(s) of the Protestant Reformation, primarily those of John Calvin, but also those of Martin Luther (particularly his later book, The Bondage of the Will). The basis of their severe opposition to Catholicism is different than in Adventism, and this needs to be understood because it is a far more critical point than the basis of Adventist opposition.

Protestant opposition to Catholicism is based primarily on the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This was the central teaching of the Protestant Reformation. This is what Martin Luther's message was all about. Salvation is accomplished for us by Christ's finished work on the cross, not by our works.

Adventist opposition to Catholicism, however, is based on the "day" of worship. Adventism and Catholicism essentially have the same teaching on "justification by faith", which is that it is not by faith alone, but rather is "faith plus works." Adventism wholly misunderstood the Protestant Reformation because it saw the main point as the "wrong" day of worship.

In short, Protestants have a different doctrine of how salvation is accomplished and how we are saved! Adventist and Catholics, however, have a very similar doctrine of salvation.

In other words, this means that agreement about a mere "day" will not bring Protestants and Catholics together. It would be easier for Adventists and Catholics to unite than it is for Calvinistic Protestants and Catholics to unite.

Thirdly, the views of Protestants on "Sabbath" is not as unified as the SDA scenario dictates. There are basically two streams of belief among Protestants about the Sabbath. One is the Reformed view, based on the Westminster Confession of Calvinism, which sees "Sunday" as the Sabbath. But there is another position which is very widespread and can be found in the Augusburg Confession based on Martin Luther's teaching:

"Does God require us to observe the Sabbath and other holy days of the Old Testament? The Sabbath was a sign pointing to Jesus, who is our rest. Since Jesus has come as our Savior and Lord, God no longer requires us to observe the Sabbath day and other holy days of the Old Testament. Does God require the church to worship together on any specific days? God requires Christians to worship together. He has not specified any particular day. The church worships together especially on Sunday because Christ rose from the dead on Sunday."

- Martin Luther, "Small Catechism" p.66-67

This is the position that the vast bulk of most Former Adventists believe, and which makes the most exegetical sense when reading the Scriptures. It is most apparent in Colossians 2:14-17, but also in Hebrews 3-4, Galatians 4 and Romans 14. The Sabbath, like the sacrifices, was a "shadow" of Jesus Christ. It was not the substance. Rather, the reality is Jesus Himself, who said, "I will give you rest." In Him we lay down our "works" (our attempts to justify ourselves by our works) and trust Him to save us. We rest in Him. In other words, the ancient Sabbath "day" was a shadow of justification by faith.

This was the "first" Protestant position on Sabbath. The "second" Protestant position is that Sunday is the new Sabbath. Ironically, Protestants of the "second" persuasion are more vehemently anti-Catholic than those of the "first". But for both types of Protestants, the doctrine of salvation is paramount; the GOSPEL is paramount.

That is to say, how we are saved and WHO saves us is the most critical thing of all. It is not about a DAY, but rather it is about a MAN---the SON OF MAN! God the Son, Jesus Christ! We are saved by Him, and the "controversy" in the world is not about a "day", but rather about HIM. We are not saved by the "work" of keeping this or that "day". We are saved by faith through His grace.

Fourth, the identification of the Roman Catholic church as either of the "beasts" in the book of Revelation is not exegetically correct -- that is, it's sloppy interpretation. The angel tells John that the inhabitants of the world will be astonished when they see the beast,

"because he once was, now is not, and yet will come." (Rev.17:8)

At the time of this writing (first century A.D.), "Roman Catholicism" did not exist. But the angel said that prior to 100 A.D., the beast "once was". The Roman Catholic church & the Pope did not exist prior to the book of Revelation. If Catholicism/the Pope is the beast, then the book of Revelation (or the angel that instructed John) is a liar.

Fifth and finally, the whole "great controversy" scenario of Ellen White and the early Adventists was not based on study of the Scriptures. It was based rather on the failed calculation of the date of Jesus Christ's return.

The SDA "pioneers" attempted to discover what Jesus said "no man" knew, and they condemned churches that did not follow them (EGW wrote that people who refused to follow Miller "had the blood of souls on their hands"). The message of salvation---the reformation truth of justification by faith---was swept aside. The gospel was considered insufficient to save you. It was more salvationally important to come out to the fields "to meet Christ" on October 22nd in order to be saved. If you didn't "come out", then you "did not love His coming". But Jesus said in Luke 17:20-21 that we are not to follow this kind of leading!

Sadly, there were people who sold their possessions, went crazy, and some elderly who even DIED out in the fields on the night of October 22nd, 1844, because it was so cold.

The SDA "pioneers" were people who refused to believe that 1843-44 had been an error. The truth is that it was a simple matter: they had been excited by Miller's calculations (which upon examination are far less than scholarly and border on the ridiculous at times). They had been excited and had "stood strong" with Millerism even when churches opposed them. At the end of Millerism, they simply couldn't admit to having made a mistake. They couldn't REPENT. They couldn't fall on their knees and say, "Jesus, forgive us because we did exactly what You told us not to do."

The result of their unrepentant decision was the "Sanctuary" teaching, the "Shut Door", and the "Investigative Judgment". A few years later "the seventh-day Sabbath" was added to this package (having been learned from Seventh-day Baptists). The SDA pioneers then set-up camp on the 7th day Sabbath. It then became necessary for them to elevate the importance of the Ten Commandments (which Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 4:13 and Hebrews 9:4 call the "tablets/words of the Old Covenant". Unconsciously, Adventism rejected the New Covenant as being sufficient for salvation, and preached the Old Covenant instead.

The entire "great controversy" scenario was created to shift churches' focus off of Jesus Christ as our salvation and onto the Old Covenant Law instead. The "great controversy" makes the cross a parenthetical thing in the whole grand scheme of the universe, which is "about God's law".

This can be seen very clearly by examining Miller's most famous calculation for Christ's return in 1843/44 -- see this link: Faith or Fear? (introduction)

The "great controversy" is a uniquely Adventist scenario that is not based in Scripture, but which is based in Ellen White's writings, which are in turn based on the Millerite experience. Again, it's not based on Scripture, but based on their experience. They rejected Christ's warnings about predicting His return and not running out into fields to see Him. Instead of repenting, they came up with a new set of teachings which continued the Millerite tradition of marginalizing the gospel of Scripture.

In blessed contrast is God's view of things. He sees that we have all failed and been lawless in our hearts, and that no obedience of ours could procure salvation for us. So He sent His Son to die in our place, taking the wrath of punishment we deserved on the cross, and giving us a new way---a New Covenant. We enter His kingdom and can say WE ARE SAVED because we believe in what He has done for us, not because of the obedience we render to Him. Our obedience is not done to gain salvation, but rather because we have already been saved. We don't have to work "towards" victory, but rather the victory has been accomplished already for us by Jesus Christ. We don't work "towards" being someday saved, but rather we know that today we ARE saved by Him, and we get to live a life of love and good works free of the weight of our actions determining our salvation.

For one view of the way He sees things, see this picture: Father's Exchange

How can a "day" distract us from such a great salvation?!! It can't. Jesus Himself said that we worship in Spirit and Truth, not by special location or special times. Hebrews 4:7 says that we may enter His rest TODAY, and Hebrews 4:3 says that we enter it BY FAITH. This is the true Sabbath-rest: Jesus Christ Himself. The "seventh day" was a shadow, not the real rest. The idea of "Sunday Sabbath" is no better, but is as equally off-the-mark as is "seventh-day", because God's rest is not a day, it is a Person--His Son, Jesus Christ!

Bless you in Jesus!
Ramone

---