For my beloved Adventist brothers and sisters who have become confused, due to no fault on their part, by the Catholic rhetoric about Sunday being a Sabbath.
You see it is confusing. Even to Catholics.
Few Christians today have questions surrounding the Ten Commandments and Sabbath-keeping so to them it is an argument as relevant to their lives as who wrote the book of Hebrews. (Some say St. Paul, others argue Apollo or someone else.) Most Protestants believe that when we are saved by God's grace, we simply don't have to worry about Sabbath--that is old covenant. Or they believe Sunday is the Christian Sabbath.
When Catholics fall into the cultural habit of calling Sunday the Sabbath, it is not on any bishop's "to do" list to correct him, because Catholics see the church as doing battle with Satan for souls. When you are fighting abortion, divorce, contraception... the list goes on and on and on... the Sabbath/Sunday issue is buried.
Therefore, it will be up to me, a former SDA to give a very brief and incomplete history of how this Sunday "sabbath" issue grew up in America and why Seventh-day Adventists can find a whole slew of writings they quote in their literature that back up Catholics calling Sunday, "the Sabbath."
First, through the centuries, scholars have seen the similarities in holy days. There are similarities in the high holy days that occur once a year in Lev. 23 (Passover, Feast of Tabernacles, Day of Atonement) and the weekly sabbath. In fact, the Passover is called a "sabbath" just as the 7th day was called a Sabbath, though they were not commemorating the same event. The Passover was a holy day just as the seventh-day was a holy day, but they were very different in that one pointed to Israel leaving for the Promised Land and the other pointed to Creation. We have holy days/holidays in America and are free to call Christmas a holiday and somehow that is not confused with Easter. It's similar to the way Catholic theology treats the Lord's Day and Sabbath.
Okay... so, understanding this, I jump to 19th century United States to begin the explanation.
America had been very anti-catholic. Many early colonies did not allow Catholics to live there. Later, the KKK's targets were both blacks and Catholics. The Catholic Church was attempting to survive by proving to Protestants we were not the great evil thing it was being portrayed as. Public and private debates erupted.
There seemed to be one point upon which the Protestants could not answer the Catholics. Catholics asked them why Protestants went to church on Sunday when there was nothing explicit in scripture that commands Christians to worship on Sunday. It was their "gotcha" moment in all exchanges.
The Sunday debate was never supposed to be a debate about the Sabbath. However, since the Calvinists in the U.S. considered Sunday a Sabbath, the Catholics just adopted the Protestant wording. This was okay with the Catholic Church because it had long seen similarities in the Lord's Day and the seventh-day of the commandments. So the Catholics felt free to use those similarities for what they believed was the greater point.
Catholics were attempting to show that the Protestants had unknowingly accepted the authority of the Catholic Church by going to church on Sunday. To this day, the same argument is used by Catholics to Protestants who deny that the Catholic Church has authority. Why do you go to church on Sunday?
Protestants' response?...... cricket sounds......
Adventist of course would misunderstand the Catholics poorly worded response of: "the Catholic Church had the right to change the Sabbath to Sunday."
And the world is shown by Adventists a plethora of 19th century priests and scholars who used the word "Sabbath" for Sunday, showing the Protestants they actually were following the Catholic lead on Sunday worship services... not the Bible.
In fact, the Catholic Church did not change Sabbath to Sunday. Sunday is the Lord's Day. It is the first day and the allegorical eighth day---Sunday is not the seventh day--so it not the day of the fourth/third commandment. (Protestants separate the first commandment and make it two, so the numbering is different.)
If one goes to Rome, one will hear anyone speaking Italian or Latin refer to the first day of the week as "The Lord's Day" and the seventh day of the week as "The Sabbath." There is not a transference. Sunday is not the Sabbath to Catholics anywhere on earth.
Sunday gets its holiness from being the great day the Son of God gave His life to save the world. Sunday doesn't need to borrow its holiness from Sabbath. Indeed, Sabbath derives its holiness because it foreshadowed the holiest day of all time.... the day heaven and earth met in a cosmic battle for our souls. And there was never a doubt as to who would win. Jesus won. And each Sunday we are celebrating that.
The Sabbath was just like John the Baptist when he said something similar to, "I must grow lesser that Jesus may grow greater."
It is time Catholics clear this up. American Catholics have used the Sabbath/Sunday as a survival issue so that the could end the attacks on Catholics. They just have never taken the time to explain the theological nuances of the Lord's Day. And that has caused untold misunderstandings with Adventists.
You see it is confusing. Even to Catholics.
Few Christians today have questions surrounding the Ten Commandments and Sabbath-keeping so to them it is an argument as relevant to their lives as who wrote the book of Hebrews. (Some say St. Paul, others argue Apollo or someone else.) Most Protestants believe that when we are saved by God's grace, we simply don't have to worry about Sabbath--that is old covenant. Or they believe Sunday is the Christian Sabbath.
When Catholics fall into the cultural habit of calling Sunday the Sabbath, it is not on any bishop's "to do" list to correct him, because Catholics see the church as doing battle with Satan for souls. When you are fighting abortion, divorce, contraception... the list goes on and on and on... the Sabbath/Sunday issue is buried.
First, through the centuries, scholars have seen the similarities in holy days. There are similarities in the high holy days that occur once a year in Lev. 23 (Passover, Feast of Tabernacles, Day of Atonement) and the weekly sabbath. In fact, the Passover is called a "sabbath" just as the 7th day was called a Sabbath, though they were not commemorating the same event. The Passover was a holy day just as the seventh-day was a holy day, but they were very different in that one pointed to Israel leaving for the Promised Land and the other pointed to Creation. We have holy days/holidays in America and are free to call Christmas a holiday and somehow that is not confused with Easter. It's similar to the way Catholic theology treats the Lord's Day and Sabbath.
Okay... so, understanding this, I jump to 19th century United States to begin the explanation.
America had been very anti-catholic. Many early colonies did not allow Catholics to live there. Later, the KKK's targets were both blacks and Catholics. The Catholic Church was attempting to survive by proving to Protestants we were not the great evil thing it was being portrayed as. Public and private debates erupted.
There seemed to be one point upon which the Protestants could not answer the Catholics. Catholics asked them why Protestants went to church on Sunday when there was nothing explicit in scripture that commands Christians to worship on Sunday. It was their "gotcha" moment in all exchanges.
The Sunday debate was never supposed to be a debate about the Sabbath. However, since the Calvinists in the U.S. considered Sunday a Sabbath, the Catholics just adopted the Protestant wording. This was okay with the Catholic Church because it had long seen similarities in the Lord's Day and the seventh-day of the commandments. So the Catholics felt free to use those similarities for what they believed was the greater point.
Catholics were attempting to show that the Protestants had unknowingly accepted the authority of the Catholic Church by going to church on Sunday. To this day, the same argument is used by Catholics to Protestants who deny that the Catholic Church has authority. Why do you go to church on Sunday?
Protestants' response?...... cricket sounds......
Adventist of course would misunderstand the Catholics poorly worded response of: "the Catholic Church had the right to change the Sabbath to Sunday."
And the world is shown by Adventists a plethora of 19th century priests and scholars who used the word "Sabbath" for Sunday, showing the Protestants they actually were following the Catholic lead on Sunday worship services... not the Bible.
In fact, the Catholic Church did not change Sabbath to Sunday. Sunday is the Lord's Day. It is the first day and the allegorical eighth day---Sunday is not the seventh day--so it not the day of the fourth/third commandment. (Protestants separate the first commandment and make it two, so the numbering is different.)
If one goes to Rome, one will hear anyone speaking Italian or Latin refer to the first day of the week as "The Lord's Day" and the seventh day of the week as "The Sabbath." There is not a transference. Sunday is not the Sabbath to Catholics anywhere on earth.
Sunday gets its holiness from being the great day the Son of God gave His life to save the world. Sunday doesn't need to borrow its holiness from Sabbath. Indeed, Sabbath derives its holiness because it foreshadowed the holiest day of all time.... the day heaven and earth met in a cosmic battle for our souls. And there was never a doubt as to who would win. Jesus won. And each Sunday we are celebrating that.
The Sabbath was just like John the Baptist when he said something similar to, "I must grow lesser that Jesus may grow greater."
It is time Catholics clear this up. American Catholics have used the Sabbath/Sunday as a survival issue so that the could end the attacks on Catholics. They just have never taken the time to explain the theological nuances of the Lord's Day. And that has caused untold misunderstandings with Adventists.
22 comments:
Wouldn't you prefer to live by Jesus's example and keep the 7th day Sabbath as He did? Otherwise you're following what "man" is telling you, not God. See Malachi 3:6.
John 14:15
M--
Jesus also kept some Sunday's as Sabbaths. Would you do that?
I don't believe that. I attend a Sunday service at a local church occasionally, because I enjoy the speaker, however, I know that it is not the Sabbath. How can you explain away the Catholic Church changing the Sabbath?
The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957): 50:
Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why Do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.
To paraphrase Dwayne Lemon's arguments for the Sabbath, I lend you these thoughts: "And he came to Nazareth where he had been brought up: and, as his CUSTOM was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read."(Luke 4:16). The word Christian means "to follow Christ." Therefore, as a Christian, should we not follow the custom of Christ to keep the Sabbath? In Acts 17:2 the Bible says, "And Paul (not Saul, but Paul...meaning he was a Christian, a follower of Christ at this point), as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures." So it was the Christian's way, the followers of Christ in the days of the Apostles, to keep the true Sabbath! Paul, a leading Christian kept it, Christ kept it, and there are Biblical examples of it being kept. It's pretty simple. Biblical examples: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." (Exodus 20:10) "And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on." (Luke 23:54) Preparation day was the day before the Sabbath. So we had the preparation day noted in the Bible and the Sabbath day noted in the Bible, all other days go by numbers...i.e. 1st day.(Example from Mark 16:9-"Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week") "And the women also,...rested the Sabbath day according to the COMMANDMENT."(Luke 23:55-56) And remember, even in death Jesus rested on the Sabbath. Of course Catholics worship every day, we ALL do. Just because church is open for mass does not mean that they are keeping the Sabbath. Here is a link for a page entitled: Boasts of the Roman Church about Sunday. http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-deception-Sabbath_Sunday_Catholic_Church
Therefore, I assert that the information in your blog post regarding the Catholics and Sabbath is incorrect and that not only do the Catholics not keep the Sabbath, they did indeed sanctify Sunday as their Sabbath and minimalized its importance by changing the commandments.
M,
I highly recommend that you pick up a copy of my book at Amazon.com. It's is entitled, "It's Okay NOT to be a Seventh-day Adventist." I spent ten chapters tracing how the Sabbath was kept in the early church all the way to the Reformers and then how the Calvinists put Sunday laws in place when they moved to the New World. Here is the link:
https://www.amazon.com/Its-Ok-Not-Seventh-Day-Adventist/dp/1419654675/ref=pd_sbs_14_3?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=DQTTV3XWFSGMXRF2VFVT
Catholic John Anthony O'Brien in The Faith of Millions said: "That observance [Sundaykeeping] remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away." The non-Catholic sects were the Protestants of whom you speak. In other words, the Catholics, who changed the Sabbath, not only claim Sundaykeeping, but boast about the keeping of that day showing the other churches who the Mother Church is. How can you deny this?
I don't have that book so I cannot see the context of what John O'Brien wrote. So I do not confirm or deny it. What I am saying is that if you look at the facts of history, not someone's commentary on the church--but the actual facts, you will see that the Catholic Church would need to have a document that says they officially magisterium changed the seventh day sabbath to Sunday. There is nothing even remotely like that. While the recent John Paul II had a document "Dmiinus DeI' explains how Sunday is like a Sabbath but IS NOT the seventh day but Sunday is the first/eighth day fulfillment in scripture--even THAT document is not official church dogma but only a pope's opinion and as wonderful as that it, it is not required for Catholics to believe.
M, you have a misunderstanding of Catholicism. Catholics worship every single day. There is no such thing to Catholics as a "day of worship." What you are actually wanting to know is why do Catholics NO REST--why we don't have a sabbath day of rest. THAT is the true difference between Catholics and Adventists. Because if you go to a Catholic church on the seventh day, you will find that they have worship services there each Saturday.
Sorry, I need my glasses this morning! This is the link to the document I referred to. It was written just a few decades ago.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini.html
I read your link and two things: 1-It is beautifully written. I understand your romance with Catholicism. I was raised in a Roman Catholic Italian family on father's side with a 4th generation Adventist mother. 2-It actually supports my assertion that Catholic's did, indeed, change the Sabbath. Direct Quote: "14. In the first place, therefore, Sunday is the day of rest because it is the day "blessed" by God and "made holy" by him, set apart from the other days to be, among all of them, "the Lord's Day"."
M,
I cannot believe you would read the document and come away with the same ideas that Adventists have. Adventists believe that sometime in the third to fourth century Emperor Constantine changed the sabbath to Sunday and "forced" the world to venerate Sunday as the Christian Sabbath.
1)THE APOSTLES made Sunday holy. (Not a later pope or Constantine)
The document says that the APOSTLES--who were ALREADY worshipping on Sunday because they worshipped daily--decided to make Sunday a special day, a holy day BECAUSE of the resurrection. It was holy because God was resurrected on it, the greatest moment of all history. It was no made holy because it was a sabbath.
2) Sunday is NOT the weekly Sabbath to Catholics.
While the pope said that Sunday has qualities similar to Old Covenant Sabbaths, he very clearly stated that the similarities were CLOSER to the yearly Old Testament sabbath at Passover. That is like comparing Halloween with Christmas. Lots of similarities but they are NOT the same. Adventists desire so badly to see certain things that they will grab at the tiniest sliver of evidence that agrees with them and totally ignored the mountains of evidence that disagrees with them. The pope says that Sunday is the fulfillment of the first/eighth day symbol in the Old Testament--NOT the seventh day. Please I urge you to go reread it. You have been reading it through a warped perspective.
3) Catholics worship daily. They do not have a day of worship. They never did. This is an SDA construct that is simply based around a false understanding of Catholicism and Christian history. Please do the research. The early church worshipped every single day. The Bible tells us this in the first chapter of Acts. Many in the early church rested on sabbath AND celebrated Sunday. There was no confusion of the two and there never has been until the Protestants began calling Sunday the Christian Sabbath.
4) Adventists break the commandment of "bearing false witness" against Catholics when they refuse to tell the truth about what Catholics believe and the true history. Adventists are SINNING against their Christian brothers by calling them the Whore of Babylon and the antichrist because of this idea that they changed the "day of worship." This is no little sin. Your entire church is BASED on a sin because you do not tell the truth about this. Your Church has always been focused on and spent many millions of dollars of offerings to God for the purpose of slandering Catholics. You predict that we will one day come after you and kill you. And you twist the Holy Scriptures who tell us to love and be united as Christians into some horror prophecy that says we will one day persecute and kill you. That does not come from the scriptures but from the pen of a woman who was mentally ill. And you all followed her.
Because of pride and fear you cling to your lie and I am so so sorry for your entire denomination. For when you do see what you have done to your brothers and sisters in Christ who have done you no wrong. When God opens your eyes to the very shameful way you have spoken falsities, many of your children will lose faith and leave God. All because you would not see the truth. You desired lies.
But do not worry, Catholics are very used to the lies told about them. We will be there to love you and forgive you. We will embrace you as our dearest brothers and sisters and will help you pray to win back your children to Christ.
I do no write this with any malice or anger. I write this with tears, for I know the deep regret of believing such a damnable lie. I see the wasted money, the wasted time and effort, the wasted fear, the wasted preparation for this last day event of the Catholic Church forcing you to worship on Sunday-- that will never come.
Believe me, the Catholic Church knows the last day scriptural events VERY well. They have studied them for two thousand years. They know what St. John said about the antichrist. And they know the antichrist WILL come from the Catholic Church--but NOT because the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon... not at all. The antichrist comes out of the TRUE Church--St. John tells us in scripture, "
1 John 2:18, 22 NIV, "Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us. ...Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son."
PLEASE, please Adventists---Which pope, which doctrine of the Catholic Church denies that Jesus is the Christ? NONE! The early church had a whole movement that schismed from the church that said this. They CAME OUT of the correct Catholic Church and founded a false denomination that said Jesus was no God or the Christ. That first century group is what St. John was referring to. But you wouldn't know or understand that because you don't look at Christian history but only study the words of Ellen White to see this. That is why you are so in error. You do not study the early church and WHAT THEY MEANT by these images.
1 John 4:3 NIV, "but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world."
Again please point out which pope or which doctrine of the Catholic Church teaches this? Why or WHY would you go around telling the world that Catholic Church is the antichrist --BEARING FALSE WITNESS against your brothers when you have no Biblical evidence against them! This is evil and wrong.
2 John 1:7 NI, "I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."
Please go back to the first passage in I John 2: 19. John says plainly that the antichrist GOES OUT of the true Church. The antichrist comes OUT of the Apostles and those who follow Christ. So if there is an antichrist--he comes out of the TRUE church not the false one. If you wanted to truly be the remnant church--the true Church--you would be teaching that the antichrist leaves the SDA church.. For the church the antichrist leaves POINTS to the True Church.
I know the sorrow of discovering the SDA church is a false church--not because of one, but because of many many things it teaches. I know the heartbreak and grief of having your eyes opened to seeing the lies the Adventists Church tells. And it is so bitter because the Adventists are such a good and kind people, a very devout people. And you cannot understand why God would allow such people to be deceived. But now God is calling Adventists to have the courage to repent of their sins of slander and humble themselves and stop persecuting their brothers and sisters in Christ. Time to love one another and Christ loved us. Put down your sword against all other Christians and see that they love you! It's okay not to be a Seventh-day Adventist. It really is!
You are doing that of which you accuse the Adventist church. You are bearing false witness against Ellen G. White by calling her "mentally ill." You are bearing false witness against the Adventist church by saying that they persecute others when the greatest literal persecution that has existed in Christian history was imparted by the Papacy. You said, "Out of pride and fear you cling to your lie..." U am not arrogant, nor am I afraid. I left the Adventist church and searched Taoism, Buddhism, Catholicism, many sects of Christian organizations as well as non-denominational. I have engaged in philosophical conversation with highly educated agnostics, atheists, and even pagans. I have, indeed, studied Christian history, world history, ancient history. I came back to the truth. I guess our discourse is over because neither of us are budging. You are in my prayers for light to be revealed to you. You do not need to feel sorry for me, because it IS okay to be a Seventh-day Adventist. It really is!
M,
Let's analyze what you wrote:
1 "You are bearing false witness against Ellen G. White by calling her "mentally ill."
Slander is repeating things that are untrue. I am repeating the medical diagnoses of several doctors who studied her and made that diagnoses, but also a couple who not only personally examined her, but saw her in one of her visions and knew her personally. When you repeat the diagnosis of trained specialists, that is not slander. Here are a few of my references:
Dr. Delmbert Hodder, (sub-specialist in pediatric neurology) “Ellen G. White and the Seventh-day Adventist Church: Visions or Partial Complex Seizures?” Journal of Neurology, Evangelica, Nov. 1981, www.ellenwhite.org/headinjury.
Diagnosis of Ellen’s condition by several doctors revealed her visions might have been epilepticepileptic seizures caused by craniocerebral trauma following her childhood injury. Dr. William Sadler, who was well acquainted with Ellen White, wrote in 1912, “It is not uncommon for persons in a cataleptic trance to imagine themselves taking trips to other worlds. In fact, the wonderful accounts of their experiences, which they write out after these cataleptic attacks are over, are so unique and marvelous as to serve as the basis for founding new sects, cults, and religions.” Ellen fits that description perfectly. The doctor continues, “It is an interesting study in psychology to note that these trance mediums always see visions in harmony with their theological beliefs.... Nearly all these victims of trances and nervous catalepsy sooner or later come to believe themselves to be messengers of God and prophets.”
Dr. M. G. Kellogg, brother of J. Harvey, studied Ellen and wrote the following: “In 1868, after talking with Dr. Trall, I began to suspect that Mrs. White’s visions might not be what we had thereunto supposed them to be, and from that time onward I have been studying both Mrs. White and her visions, dreams, and testimonies... I have seen Mrs. White when in vision quite a number of times between 1852 and 1859, in every instance she was simply in a state of catalepsy.”
Dr. Molleurus Couperus, convinced that Ellen had Temporal Lobe Epileptic Seizures wrote: Seizure disorder often develops from a severe head injury such as that suffered by young Ellen. ...There is an astonishing similarity between Mrs. White’s “visions”
and a type of seizure called psychomotor or partial-complex seizure. ...Unaware that her visions were part of a seizure, Ellen shared them with others who labeled her as a prophet and made her the center of the developing Seventh-day Adventist church.
Other diagnosis may include schizotalpal personality disorder where patients believe they have clairvoyance and experience bizarre fantasies and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
M,
You wrote:
2. "You are bearing false witness against the Adventist church by saying that they persecute others when the greatest literal persecution that has existed in Christian history was imparted by the Papacy."
Your accusation has nothing to do with slander, but hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is flagrantly doing yourself what you teach is wrong. Therefore if what you claim about the Catholic Church persecuting others is true, then perhaps hypocrisy is my error. However, even hypocrisy can no longer be claimed because the Catholic Church has apologized and turned from persecution. What has the Adventist Church done when it is wrong?
Now to the accusation that I am slandering. Your statement's premise is flawed. It is not slander to say that there is a hill in Arkansas just because there is a mountain in Washington. What the papacy has done is irrelevant to what the Adventists is currently doing. You need to prove what I say is untrue in order for it to be slander. For you to be correct, you would be obligated to prove Adventists DO NOT teach that the papacy is the seat of Antichrist and the Vatican is the Whore of Babylon that will one day--in the FUTURE-- hunt down Catholics and force them to worship on Sunday BECAUSE they changed the Sabbath to Sunday. That is silly and outrageously false history. For THAT IS SLANDER when Adventists have worldwide seminars teaching that 4th-century Catholic leaders changed the weekly Sabbath (rest) to Sunday as if we only had one "day of worship" a week and were changing times and laws. The entire SDA belief is bizarre to anyone who knows history and understands why Christians attend worship on Sunday.
M,
You wrote:
3) "I guess our discourse is over because neither of us are budging. You are in my prayers for light to be revealed to you. You do not need to feel sorry for me, because it IS okay to be a Seventh-day Adventist. It really is!"
Please understand that you came onto MY blog and threw out false accusations against the Catholic Church. Did you expect me to simply agree with them when I knew them to be untrue? I have noticed this since a child. Adventists don't want true dialogue with anyone who disagrees with them and the minute they are pinned to the wall with their own false history and ideas, they try to pretend to be the victim. Then they accuse those who don't agree with them, based on history and scripture and logic, of being stubborn and then Adventists run away. Please do not assume that I feel mutual about stopping the discourse. I am not in any way afraid of history. I based my faith in the Catholic Church with the full light shown on all its dirt and rats and cockroaches. It is the Adventists Church who is terrified of its secrets being known.
This is why people dismiss Adventists and their arguments. Then you leave with virtue signaling that you are holier with "I will pray for you." Why don't you remain and we can respectfully dialogue? With historical facts. Provable history. I am in now way angry or upset by anything you wrote. So don't think I am responding with emotion. That would also be false.
Blessings! Come back anytime and we can talk.
Thank you for your thorough response. I am not a troll. Your blog's subheading is "Discussions of a Former SDA..." and I viewed that as a welcome to discuss. Also, I did not slander nor did I use the word slander, you attacked the Adventist church through your message to me and used "bearing false witness" in capital letters, so I followed suit to demonstrate how you were doing the same. You also have a holier than thou when you say we are liars but you will be there to love us when we find out we are wrong. I also believe you are writing with emotion because you went from addressing me to passionately attacking a whole denomination and its followers and you also said you were writing with tears...emotion. I said nothing about the followers of Catholicism. The followers are not the issue. I am not a you-have-to-be-Adventist to be saved person. I am a once-you-know-truth you will return to it person. There are the good in all denominations. I was just appealing to you because of your (what I thought) was an invitation to discussion on your blog especially for those of us who had left the church at one time or another. Please forgive my assumptions. Peace. -M
M,
Bearing false witness by definition is slander--giving false information in a public arena. I demonstrated above in my lengthy responses that I was not slandering Adventism. But Adventism, by legal definition, does slander Catholics. Again I demonstrated that above.
M, I believe you are emotional and therefore mirroring emotion in me, which I assure you I am not. I give facts and that often causes people to get emotional when the facts disprove what they believe. I WAS very emotional when I left Adventism. It was traumatic for me because I loved Adventism. It was devastating to know my beloved church was so very mistaken about so much. But I am over that and have been for well over fifteen years. I have been debating Adventists for so long it is almost a bore. But I love Adventists and will do that for them for the sake of Christ. But I will not hold back the truth just because it makes Adventists uncomfortable.
I have written often with tears, but not when we were addressing each other. What make you think I was emotional?
The internet is fraught with misunderstandings. I was letting you know how your words were coming across when you wrote. Rather than just accusing me of doing the same thing, tell me if you are proud and feel you are more spiritual than a Catholic. If you do not feel that way, then I will believe you. But I ask that you give me the same benefit of the doubt. Let's get the emotion out of the way because it is not beneficial to our discussion. I don't get upset. If you do, then either we can quit the conversation or we can continue and you will have to be okay with being upset.
I often communicate with Adventists who believe that if you tell them Adventism is wrong that somehow you are attacking Adventists personally--each Adventist. Yet Adventists expect Catholics to believe that when they attack them--calling them the Whore of Babylon, the antichrist, that somehow Catholics aren't supposed to take that personally. That by definition is hypocrisy. Fact--no emotion. They expect Catholics to simply accept all lies and insults without EVER attempting to clear up the misinformation (I'm smiling--not upset at all!) And then not take it personally. And the truth is, most Catholics don't. We are used to being hated.
I agree that we are not talking about Adventists. Let's just stick with Adventism. And I could write EVERY WORD I have written above, because I was writing about Adventism. (The caps are cool emphasis--not emption.)
The more I read, the more I think you are my mother. Are you?
Go ahead, let's dialogue. You seem to always be quitting.... I'm not.
M,
Let's start with Ellen White. I wrote that she was mentally ill, which is demonstrable by physician's diagnosis. I write that she was sick because it is the nicest thing I can say about her. Because if she was not, then she was an evil woman who spoke with demons and called them angels in order to draw people into a lie. No matter if she did write the beautiful "Desire of Ages" it was her pen that wrote "The Great Controversy" which is unquestionably evil, slanderous and against Christianity--which proves she is a false prophetess.
I assure you, it is giving her the benefit of the doubt to say she was mentally ill. If she is mentally ill there is a good chance she is in heaven right now loving my ministry because I am cleaning up her horrible spiritual mess. If she was not sick, then unless she repented (which there is no record of) she is probably in hell and I absolutely don't want her to be there. So it is kind to call her mentally ill. That comes from compassion, not anger or malice.
Please review the above physician's diagnoses and give me your thoughtful opinion. Thank you, Teresa
I finally found the reference you referred to about my writings with tears... That was my December 27 comments. It confused me because I don't remember being in any way emotional and there was no emotion in my post nor in the other comments. Certainly not in the posts before or after that.
I think this whole time I have been wondering if you were a family member. And yes, I do get emotional when I think of some family members who are so anti-catholic. I apologize for being wrong about that. You were correct. But 99% of the time I discuss theology, I am not emotional. I have had HUNDREDS of discussions on this topic--if there is any emotion at all it is sheer boredom with having to re-think about these same things over and over. It is only when I think of some of my family members I do become very sad for them. They are hurting themselves so much by believing the Devil's lies. What a tragic thing!
The Catholic Church is full of good and bad people, like all religions. And Jesus warned His followers that the Kingdom of Heaven will be full of the good and bad, sheep and goats, wheats and tares. The beauty of the Catholic Church is that It is the BRIDE of Jesus. He began the church with His Apostles and it has been His bride ever since. She--His Bride (his family)--is beautiful even when the family members themselves are not fully sanctified.
Sorry for the interruption, I just wanted to let you know I apologize for my mistake. Continue on with answering my question.
No, I am not a family member. Thank you for your responding to my comments.
Post a Comment