When I attempt some constructive criticism of Seventh-day Adventist televangelists usually these men are within a decade or so of my age, so I don't feel my critique is disrespectful to an elder. But this year, I am cringing because Revelation Today, the annual Seventh-day Adventist seminar for proselytizing, is being performed by Pastor Ron Halvorsen. (I wince.)
Pastor Ron was the pastor of the Keene Seventh-day Adventists Church in Texas when I grew up. We often drove from Dallas to the little Adventist town to see relatives and attend the yearly camp meetings.
Keene was a scary place back then because it was so wild compared to Dallas. So it needed Pastor Halvorsen. I remember the scandal of the Keene SDA teenagers sitting up in the balcony gambling during his fiery sermons. I heard that once he stopped in mid sentence at the pulpit, stomped up there and confronted the kids! I kept up with whom his son was dating, because I planned on marrying a pastor (I was called to be a pastor's wife, I thought) and figured he was a prospect, a tall, tall prospect. (Ron, Jr is like six foot ten or something.)
Keene was a scary place back then because it was so wild compared to Dallas. So it needed Pastor Halvorsen. I remember the scandal of the Keene SDA teenagers sitting up in the balcony gambling during his fiery sermons. I heard that once he stopped in mid sentence at the pulpit, stomped up there and confronted the kids! I kept up with whom his son was dating, because I planned on marrying a pastor (I was called to be a pastor's wife, I thought) and figured he was a prospect, a tall, tall prospect. (Ron, Jr is like six foot ten or something.)
Then years later when my family moved to Keene so that we could all attend the Adventist college there, that same son, Pastor Ron Halvorsen, Jr., was my pastor. I think the world of all the Halvorsens and wouldn't want in any way to insult them. So I am praying I can write this in a way that is not seen as disrespectful, mean-spirited or personally critical. But it will, I am afraid. It's part of the pain of constructive criticism. It never seems constructive.
Well… on to it and I pray I can write this as sweetly as I mean it.
Well… on to it and I pray I can write this as sweetly as I mean it.
This year's Daniel and Revela-thon is being held in Charlotte, North Carolina and is basically the same old, same old. A few weeks of building up to tell us that: we soul-sleep after death, we are being judged investigatively we need to worship on Sabbath and the mark of the beast is popery. And Adventists are all going to be persecuted for keeping the Sabbath by Catholics and Apostate Protestantism.
[My family really tries to make it seem like the Adventist church is past its Ellen White last-day prophecies. But it's not. These seminars prove it year after year.]
I know many Adventists sincerely believe their doctrines. They were weaned on them and are utterly convicted of them and are loyal to the deepest parts of their souls to this message. And they will go to their deaths believing the SDA message is solidly Biblical. But the message is founded upon false information. It is largely based from the mind of a young, uneducated woman who was in a accident and suffered "visions" as a result of a tragic head wound.
The SDA prophetess Ellen G. White twisted history and the Bible to fit what she thought she was being "shown" in visions by her accompanying angel.
And Revelation Today is recycling these same old inaccuracies.
It is hard for me to understand how grown-ups can blindly pass on historical fiction year after year. I am so embarrassed for them. It makes them look like cultists. I just don't get it. These men all seemed so much smarter and more holy than me! They were who I looked up to as a kid. And they, I pray, are just either completely blind to the inaccuracies of what they preach or they are, gulp…not brave enough to face the truth. But that turns my world upside down. They were my heroes! They are supposed to be teaching me these things.
But for the sake of those who might really want to know the truth about the SDA yearly mantra of Daniel and Revelation prophecies, I will force myself to comment.
But for the sake of those who might really want to know the truth about the SDA yearly mantra of Daniel and Revelation prophecies, I will force myself to comment.
I hope that refuting a few of Elder Halvorsen's claims will be enough to prove the entire SDA theology suspect and unreliable. And to make certain this post isn't too long, I will be linking you to some answers rather than reposting them here.
We'll deal with the Mark of the Beast, one of the last of this year's topics.
To watch the video I am discussing, click here:
- At minute 38 in the video, Pastor Halvorsen begins to identify the remnant of Revelation 12:17 as those who keep the commandments. (Spoiler alert: It will be the SDA church. Adventists teach that they alone are the remnant church.)
This is wrong because Adventists really only teach one of the ten commandments: the fourth. I have never heard another Revelation Seminar dedicated to preaching that adultery, stealing, coveting or idolatry is a sin. They focus on one commandment. And notice the text says that the remnant are those who keep--not teach--the commandments. How many Adventists would admit they keep all ten commandments? The remnant keep them, not preach them.
Also, the official SDA church's position on abortion is pro-choice and some of their hospitals do abortions on demand. Therefore, they are exactly like all other churches they claim only keep nine of the ten. Because of the "thou shalt not murder" commandment (that would include abortion), Adventists cannot consider themselves a ten commandment preaching church.
At minute 45, Pastor Halvorsen refers to the Donation of Constantine which is a document known to be a hoax for centuries. Even if it were an authentic document, the mythical exchange wasn't even what the pastor presented it as. The Donation of Constantine didn't give Pope Sylvester rule over the empire, it was an honorific. When Constantine died, he gave the empire over to his four sons.
- As always, much is made about the pope being called the "vicar of Christ." Which is simply used to show that the pope represents Christ.
Here's a video that gives a short explanation of how Catholics see the church which might help Pastor Halvorsen understand why some of his accusations are false:
What we need to realize is what the word Christian means. In Antioch where followers of Christ were first called Christians, it was to mock them as being little Christs. Little Christs would be as much as a title of authority of Christ as vicar! We are in one sense all vicars (representatives) of Christ on earth.
- Then Revelation 13: 3 prophecy that the "world wandered after the beast" was introduced (the papacy.) Can you show me when the entire world was following the papacy? Never. Christendom was only in the west. And please read history. The Vatican was always in a power struggle with the Catholic kings. They never had any real ubiquitous power.
Then the SDA interpretation of Rev. 12:14, "times, time and half a time" as the beginning and end of papal rule. This 1260 day prophecy timeline of papal power supposedly began in 538. Yet, Pastor Halvorsen just "proved" the papacy was given power in 318 AD with the Donation of Constantine? So, which is it? Why would the fall of Rome two centuries later be when the papacy gained its power? And then the fatal "wound" was when Emperor Napoleon took the pope into captivity (1798).
Yet why not choose the wounding of the papacy as the 14th century captivity of the popes in France? Why not choose the sack of Rome by Catholic Charles V in the 16th century or when the papal states were taken away in the 19th century? These were much bigger wounds to the Vatican than Napoleon's. The Vatican has been under siege many times and lost and won back its power. The use of Napoleon as the point where the papacy was "wounded to death" and the 1929 Concordat with Mussolini as the definitive moment the wound was healed is simply picking out dates to make things fit SDA eschatology. The pope lost power and land many times and it made concordats with many nations before WWII. These dates are forced and contrived.
- Then Pastor Halvorsen perpetuated the myth that the Catholic Church killed 50 million people as heretics. (I don't blame the pastor, his sermon topics were already predetermined.)
All serious scholarship debunk that number. Actually, statistically it is the Protestants who are the better persecutors.
- The pastor attacked (as it has become almost obligatory) the sacrament of confession to a priest.
Here's a bit of a rebuttal on that. Then came the idea that the pope believes himself to be God on earth and the attempt with some misunderstood quotes pulled from billions of words written by the popes. The pope claims to have the chair of Peter. The pope isn't God nor teaches that he is.
Were there a few popes (out of the 266 that have faithfully served God) that abused their power and acted as if they thought they were God? Maybe even written that way? Yes. But look to official titles, official theology. Pulling a few quotes from the ocean of written material by the popes and cardinals and priests to force a point that perhaps one isolated pope or priest or bishop thought the way the SDA's prophecy needed them to think…. is simply bad history.
That would be like a Catholic pulling a quote from Doug Batchelor reporting that the televangelists admits publicly that the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists went against scripture and promoted women's ordination. Or quoting Cliff Goldstein about evolution and then assigning his position to all Adventists. Bad form.
That would be like a Catholic pulling a quote from Doug Batchelor reporting that the televangelists admits publicly that the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists went against scripture and promoted women's ordination. Or quoting Cliff Goldstein about evolution and then assigning his position to all Adventists. Bad form.
- As far as the pope's title "Vicar of the Son of God":
The Latin, "Vicarius Fili Dei" is not and never has been an official title of the pope, nor is there any evidence that it was imprinted on a tiara. (All photographic evidence have proven to be hoaxed.) Yet, even if it had been an unofficial title, is that truly evidence that the pope is the antichrist? What is so amazing is that Pastor Halvorsen doesn't tell you that Ellen G. White's name adds up to 666 also! ELLen GoVLD VVhIte 50+50+5+50+500+5+5+1=666).
Vicarius Christi is one of the popes titles and it adds up to 214. So the SDA church has some real credibility problems here. Keep in mind that the antichrist isn't mentioned in Revelation. The number of the beast isn't directly related to the antichrist, that is a conflation of the two. In his letters, St. John warns that the antichrist denies that Jesus is the Christ. (I John 2: 22) and that Jesus if from God (I John 4:3) and that He came in the flesh (2 John 1:7). No pope I know of denied these things.
St. John also clearly says that the antichrist comes out of the true church. So if the antichrist comes from the Catholic church it would identify the Catholic Church as the true one. If the SDA church would like to think of itself as the true remnant church, then they would predict the antichrist comes out of it. (Perhaps being a former Adventist.)
- One of the persistent claims by the Adventists is the idea that some pope or church decree changed the seventh-day Sabbath to the first day of the week. Completely false. The Catholic Church did not change the Sabbath to Sunday.
It is hard to watch people I love perpetuate distortions and mislead Christians. And do not be naive, Adventists target ignorant Catholics. They are not out there bringing the gospel message, they are trying to bring all Christians into their church by convincing them that other churches haven't really been obedient to Christ and scripture. Every other church is Babylon.
They alone are not apostate from truth. They twist history and scripture to convince other Christians that they are the true and only remnant.
What is heartbreaking is that by their zealousness to confuse and mislead other Christians they break the commandment, "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbors."
I hurt for the Halvorsens because I love them. I don't write that flippantly. Ron, Jr. has helped me out in ways he will never know. He is a good man.
Yet…. (despairing sigh) Pastor Halvorsen is leading the children of God into error. This is a very, very serious situation, for God says it is better that a millstone be place upon the neck of one who leads the little ones astray. He is bearing false witness against his Catholic and Protestant neighbors.
I hurt for the Halvorsens because I love them. I don't write that flippantly. Ron, Jr. has helped me out in ways he will never know. He is a good man.
Yet…. (despairing sigh) Pastor Halvorsen is leading the children of God into error. This is a very, very serious situation, for God says it is better that a millstone be place upon the neck of one who leads the little ones astray. He is bearing false witness against his Catholic and Protestant neighbors.
69 comments:
The year 538 is chosen, not because the Bible teaches that the commencement of the 1260-year prophecy is when the Papacy gained primacy or temporal sovereignty, but rather primary documents from Justinian himself show that the year 538 is when Justinian's judicial authority in the west was established. Novel 69, issued June 1, 538 confirms that this was the first time in 62years that a Catholic Emporer had held legal jurisdiction in Italy. From then on, laws have and were made to suppress, coerce and eventually kill those that believed in religious liberty
The big picture here Tersesa, in these prophecies is the concepts of religios liberty that are foundational to the government of God. Religious liberty and true faith are mutually dependent upon one another. On the other hand, when a person is demanded to conform to certain religious doctrines and practices, no true spiritual growth can occur. The religious experience will be dwarfed or stalled. And with no living experience, there can be no character development, and thus no sanctification. Hence Satan wins!
Scripture is clear that the beginning of the little horn's rule (538) is during the time of the ten horns, and the subduing of three of them, which is after 474 A.D. This disqualifies the time of Constantine as it's beginnings.
The Donation of Constantine was a forged document probably in 8th century, so the pastor did not use the document to prove the Papacy was given power in 318. And yes it did become known as a forgery after 500 to 600 hundred years of use to endow the Papacy. Interesting that each successive Pope used it along with the title VFD, and not one of them ever declared that this was not an "official" title of himself. In fact VFD is found in documents, books, plays even in many other languages. Now of course the Catholic Church will try to deny this by saying it isn't an "official" name, especially since it first was Andreas Helwig (not the "false information of a young uneducated woman") in the 17th century who discovered the VFD and 666 connection. But we know even in our day that 1) using a fake gun in a crime makes no difference in the punishment of using a real gun and 2) a technicality doesn't prove guilt or innocence.
1798 fits because it is precisely when the Papacy lost it's oppressive Pontifical government of Rome, which denied their God given rights of religious liberty for 1260 years. Speaking of this time (1798) Malachi Martin wrote "...It was always John Paul's purpose to free the Papacy from the straitjacket of inactivity in world affairs imposed upon it by the major secular powers for 200 hundred years." (The Keys of this Blood). This is the big picture here, the Papacy has always been against religious freedom.
Revelation 13:3 when all the world wonders after the beast is in the future, not past.
Looking forward to your "Mark of the Beast" but so far the only innaccuracies I see are coming from you by misrepresenting the Adventist position and denying your own church's history.
Let's assume the little horn's rule is to be interpreted as a Catholic rule (which is quite the assumptive interpretation.) Then it cannot have commenced with Justinian for the Eastern Emperor was at odds with the pope and disagreed with Catholicism about the divinity of Christ. In fact the Catholic Church claims that Justinian seized power from the church and persecuted her promoting an Eastern "Constantinople" as the new head of the church rather than the less "civilized" Rome. He ruled with an iron fist in both civil and religious policy seeing himself as a king and priest. He tolerated no dissent.
So, if one were going to force upon Justinian the title of the little horn…. then one must look to the Orthodox Church in the east rather than Rome in the west for the power of a religious empire. You would find your deadly wound at the end of the Eastern Empire rather than the west. Justinian fought against the Catholic church, he did not give it authority.
To suggest that the papacy somehow lost its power in 1798 because of Napoleon is to focus history in on one tiny point. Look at the context of the surrounding centuries. The Vatican had it MUCH worse during the Reformation, the Avignon captivity, and the sack of Rome by Charles V. Adventists want to look at one little bump in the Catholic road when there were hundreds and many that were worse.
I can't help but see a pattern of wishful thinking here on the part of the SDA church. Remember that many theology scholars see Revelation to have occurred in the first few centuries. The little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes. WAY too many variable to make any kind of definite interpretation. However, the SDA one is very poorly constructed.
But let us focus upon your real gripe. You make the claim that the government of God is based upon religious liberty. Please prove that in scripture. When you can show me, clearly, through the Bible that God wishes men to follow their own conscience and not religious authority, then we can continue this conversation. For you are accusing the Catholic Church of wrongs based upon a erroneous premise.
Teresa I never gave Justinian the title of the little horn, so please do not misrepresent what I said. It is clear to me you have not taken a critical look at your history of the your church.
Justinian elevated the Bishop of Rome to a higher status than other bishops and metropolitan bishops, the other patriarchs, as well as the archbishop and ecumenical patriarchs from New Rome. Edict from 545 "Be it known that, in accordance with the decisions of the holy councils, the holy pope of Old Rome is first among all priests, but that the archbishop of Constantinople takes second rank after the holy apostolic chair of Old Rome and stands before all others."
From Pope John 2 writing to Justinian about the relationship between the pope and the emperor:
"In the crown of your wisdom and piety, most Christian sovereign, a star gleams with particular light, and precisely acquainted with the church's teachings, uphold the reverence of the Roman seat, seek unity with him, and subordinate everything to him to whose predecessor, the prince of the apostles, the Lord said, 'Tend to my flock!' The holy fathers taught that the Roman seat stands in truth over all churches, and the emperors have declared the same in their laws…"
From Justinian to Pope John 2 "For we do not suffer anything which has reference to the state of the church, even though what causes the difficulty may be clear and free from doubt, to be discussed without being brought to the notice of Your Holiness, because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert ourselves in every way (as has already been stated), to increase the honor and authority of your see." (S.P.Scott The civil law [of Justinian] Codex I. 1.4, 12:12).
There is no doubt that through the centuries the Papacy loss power, and gained power. It ebbed and flowed, but prophecy did not concern itself with these minor details. 1798 stands to this day as a date for the deadly wound that she has yet to be healed from. The church as of today is not even close to what it was, even during the time of the reformation. It still had during that time persecuting power, today it does not.
"Following religious authority" is not the same as being denied the right to freely choose. Scripture has set a clear pattern the church must take in the conflict of tolerance and intolerance:
Luke 9:51-56 " And it came to pass, in the completing of the days of his being taken up, that he fixed his face to go on to Jerusalem, and he sent messengers before his face, and having gone on, they went into a village of Samaritans, to make ready for him, and they did not receive him, because his face was going on to Jerusalem. And his disciples James and John having seen, said, `Sir, wilt thou [that] we may command fire to come down from the heaven, and to consume them, as also Elijah did?' and having turned, he rebuked them, and said, `Ye have not known of what spirit ye are; for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save;' and they went on to another village."
I think this serves as a rebuke to the church for intolerance. There is no wrong premise that coercion is a tool of Satan, But please show me where God gave the church the right to compel men's consciences to serve Him? Because what I see from Scripture is:
When Peter, as a member of the Christian Church, sought to defend the truth by the sword, Jesus, said "Put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" Matt. 26:52.
In Scripture the tares are allowed to grow with the wheat until the harvest. They are not chased, hunted, threatened with civil power by the church, tortured, and/or burned at the stake. No human effort of arbitrary force is to be made in rooting them out.
Matt. 13:30 "`And he said, No, lest -- gathering up the darnel -- ye root up with it the wheat,
suffer both to grow together till the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the darnel, and bind it in bundles, to burn it, and the wheat gather up into my storehouse."
My kingdom is not of this world, if my kingdom were of this world, my then would my servants fight." John 18:36.
"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds." 2 Cor. 10:4. "
I wonder what would happen if the government took 18,000 acres away from the SDA church? We'd hear about it for certain from every Adventist pastor, conference leader's, and member's.
And yet, this is what happened to the Holy See.
Arik = Calvinism
Anti-Christ that rules for a short time = Marcus Salvius Otho Caesar Augustus.
Otho ruled for three month's.
Titus destroyed the Holy City of Jerusalem.
Constantine converts to Christianity = THE WOUND.
(He, as leader of pagan Rome, was HEAD of the pagan church.) The head was wounded when he converted and gave land back also allowing the Christians to publicly worship. The key here is LAND. In the last 150 year's land has been confiscated from the Catholic church as never before. (i.e. 18,000 acres)
Arik,
The powerful tyrant Emperor Justinian did try to make things work with the popes of Rome for a time and that is what you are seeing in those letters. But when the deity of Christ was being questioned in the east, and Justinian's wife, the notorious Theodora, supported the Monophysites, this caused a rupture with the popes. History is clear about this, Justinian DID see himself as the head of the church--not the pope.
Anonymous….
Thank you for your posts. Could you elaborate?
We would be in complete agreement that God allows us to freely choose who we will serve. The Catholic Church agrees too. The Catholic Church has no jurisdiction over non-Catholics and never claims to have had. What you are referring to in history is quite a different matter. Any persecution of heretics is about Catholic leaders who promote doctrines the church feels will lead souls into hell. Jesus also said, "If your eyes offend thee, pluck it out." Christ was very harsh upon his anointed leaders calling them whitewashed tombs and offspring of the Devil.
And history is complex. There were terrible bishops (and a few popes) who went against the doctrines of Christ and His Church and abused Catholics as well as non-Catholics. Absolutely! But oppression has never been a qualifier for rejecting Christ's Church. Even in His "Woe unto you scribes and Pharisees" Jesus BEGAN the dissertation with "Even if they are rotten to the core, obey them, just don't be like them!" Jesus has never allowed His people to disobey His appointed authorities even when they are failures. Please go back into scripture and watch what happens to those who defy God's leaders?
Scripture is replete with examples of men being given the death sentence for attempted coup d'etats of His leadership.
Go back and read scripture. Miriam was given leprosy for defying Moses. Korah, his followers and their families were swallowed up into the earth for defying Moses. Peter had the authority to sentence a couple to their deaths because they lied to him.
Once a person chooses to become a Christian and follow Christ and joins the Catholic Church, they have chosen whom they will serve and be obedient to. Christ gave His people authorities that we are obligated to obey. In fact Christ explicitly told us (recorded in Matt. 18) that the church is the final authority when two brothers in Christ disagree on a moral issue. Paul told Timothy that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account. Let them do this joyfully, and not sadly, for that would be of no advantage to you.
St. Paul was very clear that Christians were to obey him:
2 Corinthians 2:9
The reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything.
2 Corinthians 7:15
And his affection for you is all the greater when he remembers that you were all obedient, receiving him with fear and trembling.
2 Thessalonians 3:14
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed.
Titus 3:1
[Doing What Is Good] Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good,
Jesus calls us sheep. His apostles He called shepherds. We are to be obedient to His voice through His shepherds.
Practically, Arik, think about it. Everything in nature is set up with leadership. Children are to be obedient to their fathers, citizens to their government. Even nature attests to this with alpha dogs and leaders of the herds. Man is in chaos without leadership.
What YOU are against is not leadership but the abuse of leadership. We all agree. From fathers abusing their chidden and wives, to politicians abusing their citizens, leaders take advantage of their positions. But that doesn't mean we have the right to usurp their positions. We are not called to defy our God appointed leaders, we are called to pray for them.
There is nothing within scripture or Christian teaching that would suggest that Christians should abuse or oppress those who choose not to become Christians. Yet, you will find that Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants have oppressed those who are not a part of their group. There is sin enough to go around in this. What we need now to do is to forgive the past--the Catholics need to forgive the Protestants where they have persecuted and oppressed them and visa versa. Time to let go of the past and begin to see unity in Christ as our future.
For one day (and hopefully soon) we will ALL be under the theocracy of heaven. There, we will be completely free to follow Christ and be utterly and perfectly obedient to Him. Heaven will NOT be about personal conscience or freedom to disobey Christ or His leadership. There, for an eternity, we will be perfectly submissive. Isn't a good opportunity God has given us to learn obedience to His leaders now? Be practicing for heaven? Even if our leaders are not perfect… it teaches us great humility to serve imperfect leaders.
Teresa, you are missing the point. Prophecy does not suggest that all of a sudden in one day the Papacy became the all time ruler. In Daniel we see the little horn grow in stature, not sprout up all of a sudden.
Justinian’s decision to recognize the pope as the head of all the churches was naturally subject to the unspoken proviso that the emperor occupied a still higher place. He meant ecclesiastical precedence, not dominion of a
temporal nature; for he himself remained the vicarius Christi. Like all Byzantine emperors, both before and after him, he was the real head of the church within his jurisdiction. Petrine Primacy would come to full fruition
only two centuries later through the spurious Donation of Constantine.
Justinian's ambition to create ecclesiastical unity, his decision to elevate the Pope Head of all the holy churches was incorporated into the Civil Code. All the same, in Rome and elsewhere on the Italian penninsula the papacy had secured a territorial base to maintain itself. Justinian's codex elevated the laws of the church along with the laws of the state. The power of the ponitiffs would grow and endure for more than 1200 years, sustained by many kings and emperors.
I recommend an excellent book "The Truth About 666 and the Story of the Great Apostasy" by Edwin deKock.
Hebrews 13 does instruct us to obey God's appointed leaders as long as the leaders have submitted themselves to the Master. It is never a blind and arbritrary submission of conscience, and nowhere does it suggest submission at the pain of death, or torture.
2 Corinthians 2 was a test of obedience not so much to Paul's authority, but rather to Christ's.As the Lord had said "Him that heareth you, heareth me" (Luke 10:16).
2 Corinthian 7 shows how Titus was accepted as a messanger from God,and with all respect as such. To obey them was to obey Christ Himself.
2 Thessalonians 3 also shows that an inspired letter by God has authority. To mark those that caused division in the church was for the sake of bringing them back into the fold. Not to anathematize them. Notice Paul does not say "send them to the rack" or pronounce a death sentence on them!
Titus 3:1 shows that neglect to civil authority brings reproach upon the church. But notice that it is obvious that the church and state are not joined together but separate!
Seems to me you overlooked the Scriptures that I posted that would have greatly set the context that God is not against religious freedom to choose by wooing us to Him, not forcing.
But why don't Catholics follow the 4th commandment? How is that being obedient to Christ? Also, how will that be harmonious in your last statement of all being in Heaven?
Calling her a false prophet, then writing an article of this substance and nature... stupendously ironic.
Teresa said: “When you can show me, clearly, through the Bible that God wishes men to follow their own conscience and not religious authority, then we can continue this conversation.”
What would you have done if you were living before there were Popes to tell you what to do against your own conscience?
I always wish you well.
Arik,
I am a Preterist. But thanks for the book suggestion.
Anonymous, if you will explore this blog, you will find many posts answering your sabbath question. God bless.
Mir,
Can you show me in scripture that God wants us to follow our own ideas about what is right and wrong and also that we are to follow our own ideas of how to worship Him?
I have spent a lot of time looking for those texts. Let me know if you find them. God bless.
If all this makes you scratch your head and wonder why people get so serious about this stuff, I think you may need a little humor on the subject. My novel, RAPTUROUS, deals with so many of these issues, these "end of the world" movements, and the insane events of 2008. Yep, death row prisoners, rich women, the Pope and more all are in a race to stop George Bush from starting Armageddon. But don't take my word for the fact that you'll laugh and not be able to put this book down. You can go to www.RapturoustheNovel.com and read all about it.
Oh, and yes, the Seventh-day Adventists get into it too!
-Brent Buell
" ...Donation of Constantine which is a document known to be a hoax for centuries. Even if it were an authentic document, the mythical exchange wasn't even what the pastor presented it as. The Donation of Constantine didn't give Pope Sylvester rule over the empire, it was an honorific. When Constantine died, he gave the empire over to his four sons." Teresa
The Donation allegedly bestows upon the Pope supremacy over the sees of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem and all the world's churches. The emporer [Constantine to Sylvester I] also grants administrative rights to Sylvester and his successors over estates granted to churches throughout the empire. Most importantly,in it supposedly Constantine gives the pope control of the imperial palace in Rome and all the regions of the Western Empire which conveys the notion that the pope has the right to appoint secular rulers in the West.
The Donation of Constantine along with other forgeries was repeated over the centuries hundreds of times, along with the blasphemous title Vicarius Filii Dei.
According to Scripture VFD is a blasphemous title in that it equates himself with God (Mark 2:7,John 8:56-59, John 10:33, Matt. 26:63-66). Such titles along with Most Holy Father, and Our Most holy Lord are undoubtedly blasphemous and belong only to God. Besides, our Heavenly Father has sent-as Jesus' real representative-the Comforter, who is the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18. Even the Holy Spirit never presumes to usurp the Saviour's place for there is no substitute for Jesus. This is what VFD represents, and I think the Lord may well regard it as the most odious of ponticical titles.
Ellen G White's name does not add up to 666, because W does not equal 10 in Roman numerals, however even if it did, and there are other names as well that total that number, her name is not a blasphemous name, she does not meet the other criteria in prophecy. This was first cited by David Goldstein in the 19th century, a Jew who converted to Catholicism.
The title/name Vicarius Christi originated with Constantine, along with other names such as Pontifex Maximus, Bishop of Bishops, the Thirteenth Apostle, and Isapostolos. Later in the year 495 did Pope Gelasius I called himself Vicarius Christi. This name has not been used just for popes, it was used by empoeres and other bishops as well. Vicarius Christi falls short of the more pretentiouis VFD which is a uniquely a papal title.
Vicarius Christi IS one of the popes titles--but it adds up to 214 NOT 666. That is my point above. The Vicarius Fili Dei is not a papal title. Again, we have to be careful about numerology. Adventists have to do a lot of tap dancing to make papal titles and papal dates fit their agenda. Better simply go with the historical Christian view and look to whom St. John pointed to and that was someone during his time. He clearly says that in the introduction to his book of Revelation.
Vicarius Christi Is one of many titles, but it does not fit the criteria. VFD is most certainly and exclusively a Papal title, used extensively by many popes over hundreds of years! And BTW it wasn't Adventist who first recognized the blasmemous title to equal 666, that came by way of Andreas Helwig in 1602.
You are only trying to establish that technically it is not an "official" papal title, as if the Papacy would ever use it as one today, now that it has been verified as such. Just keep in mind that prophecy no where says the mark of the beast is or must be an "officially" recognized title/name, especially in what we now deem to be official. It most certainly is used on "official" papal documents and repeated over and over all used to give authority and supremacy to the Papacy. This you can no way deny unless it is you who are turning a blind eye to history. Earlier in another post you were asking me to find an official statement (another technicality) by the Papacy that admists it changed the Sabbath to Sunday, yet here we have official statement on official documents that clearly show VFD being used as a title! hmmm?
Rev. 13:18, "This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666."
Arik, this says nothing about the antichrist. It is the number of the beast. It is a stretch to consider them the same. The man's number is 666. That doesn't say it is his name or his title. Again, all this is speculation, upon speculation. And most probably was Antiochus. Sorry, I find this all very, very flimsy evidence against any pope.
Teresa, by definition VFD means antichrist (in place of Christ) as does Vicarius Christi, Most Holy Father, Most Holy Lord. And yes Scripture DOES say it is the number of his NAME (Rev. 13:17).
Even Irenaeus in his day recognized the beast as antichrist and that his name would add up to 666.
In fact I find it curious that all you can offer up regarding VFD is that it is not an "official" title of the pope, yet in no way have you even denied that in fact he isn't the VFD. For most certainly for Catholic's he is.
Interestingly enough on Nov. 4, 2007 Catholic priest Edward L. Beck on Fox News Channel "Hannity's America" Beyond Belief says "...if you take the Latin name that refers to all the popes, Vicarius Filii Dei, which means vicar of the Son of God, if you take the Roman numerals out of there, guess what they add up to? 666."
I find it interesting that you nor Beck denies this is the popes name. Your position that it is not "official" means nothing in light of prophecy, for you as well as all Catholic's most certainly do recognize the pope as Vicarius Filii Dei.
Arik,
Again, to a preterist, this is all nonsense. Ellen G. White's name adds up to 666 as did Ronald Reagan's. Any number of leaders name can add up to this number. To take ONE out of many, many titles (both official and unofficial) for the pope (not NAMES mind you but titles) and find one that equals 666 is not surprising.
Here are a list of the official papal titles:
- His Holiness The Pope;
- Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ;
- Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles;
- Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church;
- Patriarch Of The West;
- Servant Of The Servants Of God;
- Primate Of Italy;
- Archbishop And Metropolitan Of The Roman Province;
- Sovereign Of Vatican City State;
Arik keep in mind that Catholics believe we ALL can have the title of vicar of Christ. In fact, we DO. When we say we are Christians, we are saying the exact same thing. We are claiming we are "little Christs" for that is what the nickname meant when the Romans called the believers in Antioch by this name. I think if we are going to call the pope blasphemous for calling himself Christ's representative, then we should all be running from the name Christian, for it would be just as blasphemous to refer to ourselves as little Christs.
It seems to me Teresa that all you do is throw up a lot of nonesense to see what sticks. As I mentioned before, finding a name whose Roman numerals add up to 666 should not be surprising, EGW's name does not add up to 666 because W does not equal ten in Roman numerals. However even if it did, she nor any other name that does equal 666 does not meet the criteria of the man of sin described in Daniel and Revelation. Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Bunyan, Isaac Newton, Wesley, Whitfield, Jonathon Edwards, Spurgeon, Bishop J.C. Ryle,and Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones among other all saw the office of the Papacy as the Antichrist without even using the number 666 as evidence.
Preterism was largely introduced by Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613)a Spanish Jesuit scholar of the counter reformation. It is he who offered up Antiochus IV as the little horn of Daniel. Although Antiochus does indeed meet some of the characteristics specified in prophecy, it hardly prevents Dan. 7 from applying to the papacy. Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 links the Little Horn with a power that would flourish during the Christian era, beginning with the destruction of Jerusalem. "When ye shall therefor see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place...." Matt.24:15. The Syrian king belongs to an earlier pre-Christian period, as part of the four-headed leopard, symbolizing Greek dominion.
In Revelation name is synonymous with a title as in Revelation 19:16- "And He has on His robe and on His thigh a NAME written KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
If the word Christian does indeed mean "little Christ's" than indeed we should be running from it. For for sure we are not. But some critcal research would show that the word Christian is merely someone who follows Christ,a disciple or one who clings to the Gospel. The word vicar however means substitute much in the same way as anti in antichrist. This is indeed what the papacy has done. She has placed herself as God here on earth by misapplying Matt. 18:18, she has killed the saints, or other christians that did not adhere to her doctrines, and she has changed God's laws by allowing idolatry into the church, and transferring the solemnity of the Sabbath to Sunday!
Arik, there is no "W" in Greek, Latin or Hebrew--it is a modern letter that comes from the Hebrew. It developed in the Latin by using two "V"'s. Thus, since V =5 in the Latin, two V's or one "W" would equal ten. I think that is how they get 666 out of Ellen's name. But that is all silliness. Really. The 666 may be multilayered and be symbolic and literally an adding up of a person's name in letters (no one does that anymore, that is an ancient practice) but if so, then it was for an ancient audience not ours. It's more profound meaning is that six is one less than seven. Seven means a completion of a cycle. So, there has been much speculation through the centuries about the three "6"'s compared to the Triune God. A god that mimics the Trinity but can't complete something. Theologians have been attempting to break that code forever. And since they found the earliest manuscripts that have the numbers 616, now we have a new set of inspiration to find the meaning.
The early Christian Fathers believed that Revelation was for them. The genre of apocalyptic literature is meant for the time of the readers to give them hope. The book of Revelation is by no means unique to its time. Some of the early church included the Apocalypse of Peter in scripture. It was later taken out by the Catholic Church when they put together the Bible.
If you will read some of the Church father's writings on Revelation you will see there is no idea of it being a great distance from them for John the author told us that these things he was writing were at hand.
Some in the early church believed that Caesar Nero or Caligula could be the beast. Both of them claimed to be God and their names can add up to 666. See, this speculation can go on and on.
The title of Christian was given in Antioch by the Romans. It was a slur, a pejorative--it meant little Christs to them. The definition has developed through the centuries to mean followers of Christ. I was going back to the original intent.
You keep referring back to the Catholic Church's killing of Protestants and heretics as if that alone signifies they are the antichrist or beast. What about all the Catholics martyred as heretics and traitors by the Protestants?
If playing God as a church authority is your criteria, why not choose King Henry 8th who dubbed himself Priest, Pope and King and murdered anyone who protested against that? What about Jean Calvin and Martin Luther who incited mass slaughters, and wars and pillaging of Catholics? Are they also antichrists?
I think Luther is much more of a candidate for an antichrist than a pope could ever be. Compare his writings about the Jews and Zwinglians to Pope John Paul II's.
And Ellen White claimed to be God's ONLY true authority and if you crossed her you were crossing the Holy Spirit. She had a god complex too. I could make a great case that she is the antichrist, or one of them.
Arik, you are a faithful Adventist. All your posts reflect your loyalty to SDA theology. I can assure you that I have thoroughly debunked some SDA doctrine--I even wrote a book about it--and have complete peace with my decision to leave Adventism.
If you are here to try to convince me of these things, God bless you, but both our times are being wasted. I completely disagree with Ellen White as a prophetess, the idea that we are obligated to rest on Sabbath in the New Covenant.
Oh you know the rest…. (badda bing.)
So what is your purpose in coming here to debate these things with me? Are you open to being wrong? Are you fighting with your own spirit on these matters?
I think your life is very busy, and maybe you did not notice what I was asking you.
I hope to hear from you.
Mir S,
Yes, I have been very busy! But I did read and comment upon what you wrote already.
Mir, God has ALWAYS had authorities. Before the Apostles it was the Sanhedrin, the high priest (the seat of Moses) and the Pharisees, before that it was kings, prophets and judges. Before that it was Moses. Before that it was the patriarchs.
Each family has had its own authority hierarchy with the father, then mother. You cannot get away from SOMEONE who is your authority in this world. Either civil or spiritual.
This is the way God set things up. He speaks THROUGH His appointed authority and sometimes that authority writes down (Bible) what He speaks and sometimes they don't. But whether it gets written down has no effect upon the authority of the words if they come from God.
Man has always had a God appointed authority that he must obey. However, even God's appointed authorities can be wrong (even if we have to obey them!) So, as adults--how do we know if our authorities are wrong?
Outside of civil and spiritual authorities, we also have natural law and scripture in which to "triangulate" truth. The Holy Spirit uses all three of these things to bring us to wisdom.
We are SO blessed that God has given us layer after layer of ways to receive His wisdom!
Our spiritual authorities first and foremost: The Church--pope, magisterium, tradition, Bible, bishops, priests.
Civil authorities
Family authorities
And finally common sense (Natural law).
Each of these is used by the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth.
Does that answer your question?
Blessings,
Teresa
I am on here to correct the errors that you perpetuate, especially with the misrepresentations of SDAism that permeate your posts. It is like you said "But for the sake of those that want to know the truth about SDA..."
Offering up your early church fathers erroneous prophetic views as proof that prophecy is mere speculation is an erroneous view in and of itself. We should not be surprised that even some of the best prophetic expositers of the Western Church were prone to error. By this time, syncretism-including the cult of Mithras-had begun to corrupt Mediterranean Christendom. Doctrinal apostacy offends the Comforter, so that He will no longer guide the student of the Bible into all truth, according to the Saviour's promise (John 16:13).
The number 666 in Scripture is not hex, hex, hex or "one less than seven" or the imperfection or humanity of the number as I have also encountered. The number in Scripture is 600, 60 and 6. The invitation in Revelation 13:18 to those that have wisdom to calculate the name of the Beast and hence does not refer to generic depravity, or the Trinity or what ever other forms of idealism you can throw out there.
To give you an understanding of the misreprentations by you of what I believe and what I also have written, your last post said
"You keep referring back to the Catholic Church's killing of Protestants and heretics as if that alone signifies they are the antichrist or beast." But that isn't really the truth now is it? I have never stood on that alone, not have I stood alone on the name 666 as you implied earlier. There is much criteria to be met in Scripture for the identification of the antichrist, and though there are others in history who have met some of the criteria, there is only and can be only one who meets all the criteria. But my point is that this is what you do, you misrepresent what I actually said, which if people reading this would see this to be the case, than they also would know this to be the same case found in your book "It's ok NOT to be a Seventh Day Adventist."
You said "The title of Christian was given in Antioch by the Romans. It was a slur, a pejorative--it meant little Christs to them. The definition has developed through the centuries to mean followers of Christ. I was going back to the original intent." But that's not how you first threw it out there is it? Originally you said "We are claiming we are "little Christs" for that is what the nickname meant when the Romans called the believers in Antioch by this name." You threw this out there to somehow prove that VFD is not a blasphemous name. As though the first Christians actually thought of themselves as "little Christs". So to me not only do you misrepresent me and the early Christians you also have now misrepresented yourself. So I must ask you who is fighting with your own spirit on these matters?
From what I see your defense of the Catholic faith on this matter is just offerring up a bunch of confusion into the mix. To some how prove to the readers that there are so many other possiblilities that we really can't know for sure what Daniel and John the revelator really meant. You yourself really do not know what the correct view is, all you think you know is what it is not. I heard it said "any fool can critisize, and most do."
God is not the author of confusion, and He Himself offers us wisdom to understand and a blessing to us if we do (James 1:5,Rev 1:3). We just must be willing to accept Truth for what it is, however painful it first seems to be. Truth sanctifies, Truth sets us free. (John 17:17, John 8:32.)
Arik,
Perhaps I am not clearly communicating or am not being careful with what I write, forgive me. I promise you, however, that I am not deliberately trying to misrepresent you but trying to understand and clarify. I don't know how old you are… or your nationality… or even your gender. But these things can cause differing perspectives that we need to overcome for communication. Understand that I have no hostility towards you, no need to deceive or misrepresent you. Sorry you feel that way.
Arik,
About the title of "Christians." I think you make a good point about definitions changing and how we need to be clear about which definition we are using--the old or the new.
That is my point about the pope's titles. You need to go back to original intent. You arbitrarily put a malevolent intent on the popes for the title. They most likely had goodwill in mind rather than something sinister and deceptive.
I do think we need to see ourselves as little Christs. I think the world would see Jesus more if we thought that every single thing we did represented Him.
Now as far as Daniel and John: At this time, I do not think Christ has revealed the mysteries of the Last days. We are only confusing ourselves with projections into the future when Christ hasn't yet given us the answers. We need to be patient. God will tell us when it is time.
Arik, question.
Are you upset? Sometimes the tone of your writing seems to me you are upset. I am only asking because there are people out there would think I write in that tone also. Just know I do not get in any way emotional--good or bad--when writings or discussing theology. I study it like I would history or science. Emotions are very, very rare if nonexistent when I write.
So to be clear--is this discussion upsetting you?
"That is my point about the pope's titles. You need to go back to original intent. You arbitrarily put a malevolent intent on the popes for the title. They most likely had goodwill in mind rather than something sinister and deceptive."
I actually think it makes better my point rather than yours. VFD was not a name that someone pejoratively thrust on the Pope. It was one he chose for himself, to further bolster his claim of supremacy over people, secular rulers, and territories. Teresa, can you deny that the Pope bolstered himself to a much greater level than even Peter ever thought of?
Unlike the word Christian, VFD invariably stresses the idea of divinity, it did then and it does now. The true VFD is the Comforter! (see previous posts)
If you follow the nefarious preterist school of interpretation then you can say we are "confusing ourselves with projections regarding the future." However the historicist interpretation leaves no confusion or speculation regarding the future. For it certainly believes that "Surely the Lord God does nothing Unless He reveals His secret to His servants the prophets (Amos 3:7).
I would not characterize my responses as being upset. I believe that what we are talking about has life and death consequences regarding the choices we make. I just think that your readers should know that how you have protrayed Adventism is really not Adventism at all. Even from someone who claims to have been one, I find it amazing that you really ever was one at all. When Paul said "all who are Israel are not Israel" perhaps the same rings true for Adventist!?
I can not read your heart, so your "intent" plays no bearing on my resposes. All I can do is react to exactly what you write. Whether you purposely meant to misrepresent or not I lay at the feet of Jesus to judge. But if you go back to the original post and the responses, I think it is plain as day you took some liberties in describing the Adventist position.
Teresa said: "God's appointed authorities can be wrong (even if we have to obey them!) So, as adults--how do we know if our authorities are wrong?"
I don’t really understand what your position is here. You say “authorities can be wrong (even if we have to obey them)” which might in some cases mean we should do what an authority figure says even if they tell us to do wrong, but then you say “as adults—how do we know if authorities are wrong?”, which could imply that we do NOT have to obey them, but should go with our conscience.
Sorry I am not up to speed.
Mir,
Catholics should obey the priests but if they go rogue and say something irrational or against the church (Magisterium or Catechism) then you shouldn't do it. We do have to use judgement based upon an informed and educated conscience. Our consciences can err just like anything else.
So God gave us a triangulation in order to properly discern what to do when we believe our priests or bishops are going against God.
Arik wrote:
VFD was not a name that someone pejoratively thrust on the Pope. It was one he chose for himself, to further bolster his claim of supremacy over people, secular rulers, and territories. Teresa, can you deny that the Pope bolstered himself to a much greater level than even Peter ever thought of?
My response:
That is speculation which I do not accept. I would have to have some evidence in order to believe that type of slander against another human.
When Christ said to Peter, "I give you the keys of the kingdom. Whatsoever you bind shall be bound in heaven" that was handing him enormous authority. I don't think the popes have given themselves any extra power than was intended by God.
I can assure you that I write about the Adventism I grew up in and was taught in elementary, secondary and at university. I describe the Adventism I saw played out in SDA meccas such as Keene, Texas, Loma Linda, CA, Hagerstown, MD, Collegedale, TN, and the DC area. I lived in these areas. I also attended SDA churches all over America and overseas. I have family and friends who work at the GC, at the publishing houses. My credentials as an SDA are impeccable. My knowledge of Adventism both doctrinal and cultural is pretty good.
I am interested in understanding your position before there was a Catholic church. If a king said to build a road at a certain place, you could do that without violating your conscience, but do you think that there have always been authority figures on earth that should have been obeyed to the violation of our conscience.
Teresa,
When you said "God's appointed authorities can be wrong (even if we have to obey them!) “, do you mean that Catholics have to obey priest even when they are wrong, except when they say something irrational or against the church (Magisterium or Catechism)? Can the word wrong that you used mean a request or command that is against the teachings of the Bible?
Thank you
"That is speculation which I do not accept. I would have to have some evidence in order to believe that type of slander against another human."
I am not exactly sure what you are calling speculation and slander? It is a fact that the Papacy chose VFD as a name on her own, and it is a fact that it was for the first time used in the Donation of Constantine, a forged document specifically invented to give esteem to the spiritual, political and territorial claims of the papacy. VFD was also used extensively throughout papal history, not only in Latin but other languages too. These are facts of history that go beyond speculation and therefore out of the reach of mere slander.
Your interpretation of Peter receiving the keys and all this authority goes way beyond the Biblical evidence. BTW in verse 19 Jesus gives all His disciple the keys ("ye" is plural).
The passage actually is translated "whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you have loosed on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." The meaning is that the disciples could not do any more or less than what heaven required. The "keys" is simply the knowledge of God that opens the door to His kingdom. Look at Luke 11:52 where Jesus says "Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of knowledge, you did not enter in yourselves, and those that were entering in you hindered."
In Scripture we have not one example of Peter or anyother apostle using forgeries to bolster themselves or the kingdom of God. BTW the Donation of Constantine certainly is not the only forgery. Just to mention a few, we also have the Donation of Pepin, and the Forged Decretals and the most important of them all Gratian's Decretum, which was issued about the middle of the 12th century. In this work the Isidorian forgeries (False Decretals) were combined with those of the Gregorian writers, Deusdedit, Anselm, Gregory of Pavia, and Gratian's own addition. Please note in the Decretum "that in his unlimited superiority to all law, the Pope stands on equality with the Son of God..."
So please Teresa, show me where I have used speculation or where I have slandered anyone?
I think we are to be natural and rational about this. We could ask a child this question, "Does God really expect you to obey your father if he tells you to steal something?" Or to an American citizen, "Does God really expect you to obey the law when it enacts a morally wrong law?"
God put in place authorities and we are to obey them. But there are limits even to that. I cannot give you the answer you are wanting because each case is an individual one. We can't say, "Hey kids, disobey your parents when you think they are telling you wrong." However, if six-year-old child were to come to her teacher and say that he father put out his cigarette on her shoulder because she wouldn't steal some more cigarettes for her, then we have another situation in which the community itself must become involved. And the child may, indeed, be told not to obey her father. But then she needs to be placed under another good authority. She doesn't need to be given her freedom.
The Lord gave us layer after layer of authority to protect us from the bad ones. We get TWO parents to balance each other and watch out for abuses. We have local authorities in police, teachers, priests, pastors, etc. Then we have another higher layer of governors, bishops, etc. Then the federal layer of president, congress, pope and magisterium. This proves not that we are to disobey authority when they go wrong, but rather to go up the layers to get justice.
Arik,
Right now I am in the middle of a lot of work. I hope that in the near future I can answer your questions, but for now I have to attend to some pressing deadlines. (And everyday I get to my computer and I have people wanting to debate me and ask me questions. This takes a lot of time and energy. Please don't think I am ignoring you… it is that I am getting way behind in the long list of questions and since I have already discussed so much with you, I can't place your questions above many new people attempting to engage me.) Check back in a few weeks and I am hoping by then I can get to your questions. God bless….. and have a very merry Christmas season!
I am busy now. It was nice exploring truth with you. If you really wanted to continue this than you can let me know on Wednesday or later, though I think you are able to imagine many points that I could bring up next.
Thanks Teresa
Wow this opened up a can of worm's! I will say again Arik = Calvinism. Also T. Beem I remember early on in this blog you stated that there was never a way out of an argument with Adventist's. You are proven correct! And you are being bombarded now in this strand by not two but three maybe four? So anyhoo the Holy Bible does not mention "666". It say'd "six hundred sixty six" written out as one would write out a cheque. "Cheque please".
It pertains to money. Six hundred sixty six pieces of gold were turned over to King Solomon son of King David of Israel. This was done more than once in fact it was done once per year if my memory serves me right. This gold is still in existence to this day and held by Israel.
1260 is not year's. It is day's. Edict of Milan minus year of Constantine's baptism on his deathbed = 1260.
Have a glutonous thanxgiving everybody!
Random fact: Elizabeth I of England hunted, tortured, and executed more Catholic's in one year than the entire Spanish Inquisition.
Calvinism believs in pre-destination, which goes against the biblical idea of free will. So I can not be characterized as Calvin. Truth is I lean more toward Arminianism than Calvinism on this matter.
I do not know where you get the idea that 666 refers to money, since Scripture is very clear it is the number of a name. Also why would Scripture be concerned with Constantine's baptism, when history records that it really was highly questionable whether Constantine really was converted? His actions certainly do not suggest he was Christian at all.
It is improper to look back history and find one or two characteristics of the beast that may or may not have in common with other people. The identification is not based soley on the number 666, or the killing of the saints, or 1260 years.
It is true that persecution has happened by other religious groups other than just Catholicism. We even see it happenning today. And this should serve as a warning that church and state should always be separate. History records very well for us that when these two entities are united, intolerance and persecution are the result.
I hope Teresa will pick this conversation up again and reply to the overwhelming evidence that the Papacy is indeed the antichrist.
Perhaps after the holidays… Arik. But I think we have explored this as much as we can. We have different interpretations of scripture.
"And Adventists are all going to be persecuted for keeping the Sabbath by Catholics and Apostate Protestantism. "
"[My family really tries to make it seem like the Adventist church is past its Ellen White last-day prophecies. But it's not. These seminars prove it year after year.]"
"It is largely based from the mind of a young, uneducated woman who was in a accident and suffered "visions" as a result of a tragic head wound. [Image] The SDA prophetess Ellen G. White twisted history and the Bible to fit what she thought she was being "shown" in visions by her accompanying angel." Teresa
The idea of the commandments of God and specifically the Sabbath being the end time issue
that divides God's true people to His professed people is not something that comes from the delusioned mind of EGW. In 1657 a man by the name of Thomas Tillam also recognized this principle too. His book titled "The Seventh Day Sabbath Sought out and Celebrated or The Saints Last Design Upon The Man Of Sin With Their Advance Of God's Last Institution To It's Primitive Perfection, Being A Clear Discovery Of That Black Character In The Head Of The Little Horn, Daniel 7:25"
Jesus said "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matt 5:11-12).
If people are going to persecute prophets, how are they going to do it? According to Jesus, falsely and with all manner of evil. So if EGW was a true prophet, I should expect all manner of evil to be falsely spoken against her. And if I was to judge her on all manner of evil spoken falsely of her, certainly I would judge her as a false prophet.
If you Teresa were honest about Adventism and history, you would know that Adventism really is a culmination of a rich Protestant heritage, and would not speak so falsely about it!
Miller was a false prophet. Ellen endorsed his false prophecy. That makes Ellen in league with false prophecy. That is enough to show the world and all Adventists that she is not of God.
She herself made other false prophesies. So therefore, according to the word of God spoken by the TRUE prophets I do not need to be afraid of her words.
Teresa, William Miller never was a "prophet", nor did he ever claim to be one. He was a student of the historicist method of understanding prophecy, a method quite prominent even among your church fathers. But this is neither here nor there. It would be refreshing if you would address what I wrote instead of raising up a straw man.
The fact that someone in the 17th century also recognized that in the very last days there will be a group of people who will vindicate God's character (Rev 14) and recognized the Papacy's changing of God's law, and recognized that the law of God, particularly the Sabbath, will be the dividing issue, should make you recant that these ideas came from EGW's delusional mind!
It would be nice if you could be objective.
William Miller gave a false prophesy of when the Second Coming was, whether he claimed the title or not.
Whether or not the SDA prophetess was the first to claim a papal antichrist is here nor there to me. If it is wrong, it is wrong.
HI Teresa
The first question I would like to ask you, Are you a Catholic, If you are God bless you,There are some very loving caring Catholics, Baptists, Protestants and many other religions. God loves us all, He loves the person, but hates the sin. Jesus says in John 10:starting at verse 1 through30 that Jesus has only one fold, starting at verse 16 which says,"and other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they will here my voice and there will be one flock. Go to verses 24-30 of John in the same chapter (10) and read what Jesus said to the Jews. There is only one truth .Jesus says, If you love me, Keep my Commandments John 14:15. Jesus also says in Matthew 7:21-23,
Not everyone who says to me,"Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven , In verse 23 he tells them why, and then I will declare to them, I never knew you,Depart from me, you who practice LAWLESSNESS.!st John 3:4 says whoever commits sin also commits LAWLESSNESS, and sin is LAWLESSNESS. Matthew 18:3 talks about you must be converted or you don't go to heaven.There is only one true religion. Those who love Jesus and keep his the commandments.
Its amazing how we can toss things out there when we don't know what we are talking about.We will be held accountable to God for leading people astray. Matthew 18 3 says we need to be converted or we don't go to heaven. Matthew 7: 21-23 says, not everyone who says Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven. Verse 23 says why, you who practice LAWLESSNESS,. !st John 3:4 says whoever commits sin also commits LAWLESSNESS, and sin is LAWLESSNESS.There is only one true fold(religion) Read John 1013-16, then go down to verses 24-30.
Jesus loves us all, But it has to be his way or we are lost!!!!!
Could you show me where Ellen White made false prophesies. If you can show me just one I will change to another belief. Do you realize the things you are saying could lead someone astray and you will be held accountable .You are fulfilling prophecy yourself by your false statements.
Read the book of Daniel and Revelation.These two books will tell you who the antichrist was and is.
You need to know your Bible. John talked about antichrist in 1st John chapter 2, and 1st John chapter
and 4,and 2nd John chapter 1
Where do I start!? There are so many false predictions (that have been covered up or excused)--that I will just name a few. BESIDES the already mentioned Miller's failed prophesy that she supported, here are a few more:
She predicted that the world would soon be depopulated. Testimony #8, p.94, in Spiritual Gifts III-IV
In one meeting Ellen told everyone that God would heal a sick man and the man died. I don't remember where I heard that but look it up on the internet.
There were those who attended a meeting where Mrs. White said the Lord told her He would return in 1845. (See Lucinda Burdick's testimony, it used to be online…)
In 1849 Ellen predicted, "What we have seen and heard of the pestilence [of 1849], is but the beginning of what we shall see and hear. Soon the dead and dying will be all around us." (Present Truth, Sept. 1849)
(Early Writings, pp. 64-67)
In 1850 She predicted, "My accompanying angel said, 'Time is almost finished. Get ready, get ready, get ready.' . . . now time is almost finished. . . and what we have been years learning, they will have to learn in a few months." Whoever this angel was, he lied to Ellen.
In 1856, again Ellen was told that Jesus was coming before some of the people hearing her would die, "I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: 'Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus.'" Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 131
She predicted that "sealing time" had commenced and that no one after that could be saved, but she reversed that later. "For a time after the disappointment in 1844, I did hold, in common with the advent body, that the door of mercy was then forever closed to the world . . . I was shown in vision, and I still believe, that there was a shut door in 1844." SELECTED MESSAGES 1 p. 63
She predicted England would have another war with America. Again I don't have the source but I know if you look it up in White's writings online. Put in "When England declares war…" I think it is in the Testimonies.
In Early Writings, (p. 75) Ellen wrote, "I also saw that old Jerusalem would never be built up…" She was talking about Israel going back to Jerusalem. She said it would never happen. It did of course.
The list is much greater of her biblical errors. A nice, sincere lady I am sure she was…. just not a prophetess. I do not think she was culpable for her delusions because she was mentally ill from her childhood head wound. So I don't think badly of her. I just think she was caught up in the times…. where hundreds of people were claiming special revelation from God.
Dear Teresa Beem, If you want to discover the 100% absolute Biblical truth of God's Word, we suggest you personally investigate and watch the whole series entitled Total Onslaught online at AmazingDiscoveries.TV by Professor Walter Veith. It is a comprehensive Biblical series that ties it all together revealing what is going on behind the scenes. It is true that there is a total onslaught against Jesus Christ, the Son of the Most High LORD God. If you neglect researching and watching that series prayerfully with an open mind,... then the Lord will say to you and any others whom He did give a chance, that they willfully neglected that God-given opportunity.. God bless.
Anonymous,
I grew up going to all the SDA revelation seminars. I have read all the books and know Adventism well. I have watched Doug Batchelor and was a big fan and still believe he is dead on correct about some things. However, I have to tell you honestly I do not believe Professor Walter Veith has any authority at all to be speaking for God and His Word. He is teaching heresy.
Please read our book, "It's Okay Not to be an SDA" available at Amazon.com and you will realize we have done enormous research on SDA prophesy and have rejected it as being against scripture. God bless you too and let us keep praying for one another!
Apparently you have never read Mrs. Whites writings and the Bible completely or you would know that she was a Prophet od God and her writings are inspired and point you back to The Bible. When the end comes and Jesus Appears for His Children you will know the truth. Hopefully you will be following Jesus when that happens. I will pray for you.
It is not what you know but who you know the bible is clear there is only one way to worship God and that is in truth and Spirit throughout Bible history beginning with Cain and able one worshipped God according the way God intended and the other according to his own way which lead to ones sacrifice being rejected and lead to one being killed notice they were brothers in the same family just like Judas Iscariot who was In the body of Christ and betrayed Jesus that same spirit is Cain took on and killed his brother is the same in Revelation 13-15 it is political religious system that forces worship and if you do not go along you will be killed doctrines are good but if you do not have love church denominations is a label and can lead to this rival Gods love breaks down these barriers true religion is to visit the widow the farther less is it possible to know the truth and still be 100% wrong the answer is yes look at Paul he was persecuting the body Christ Crucified should be the message With Christ in everything
I am pretty sure Arik would tell you Scripture interprets Scripture. The Creator does not need our help.
First i would like to inform everyone that Pastor Ron Halvorsen passed away a few days ago. He may not have been perfect or presented the gospel or prophecy perfectly, in any case no one is perfect and no one can be 100% correct in understanding the bible anyway, but he was surely a gallant solder for Christ.
On November 18th 2013, Teresa Beem wrote:
"Arik,
Right now I am in the middle of a lot of work. I hope that in the near future I can answer your questions, but for now I have to attend to some pressing deadlines. (And everyday I get to my computer and I have people wanting to debate me and ask me questions. This takes a lot of time and energy. Please don't think I am ignoring you… it is that I am getting way behind in the long list of questions and since I have already discussed so much with you, I can't place your questions above many new people attempting to engage me.) Check back in a few weeks and I am hoping by then I can get to your questions. God bless….. and have a very merry Christmas season!"
Now that I am readning this for the first time (I am not the "Anonymous" above), it is August 9, 2015. So if the intent was to answer "in a few weeks", I would really like to read your reply to Arik's comments? Can we still wait for your reply, or should we stop waiting?
Well, here it is 13 January, 2018 and still waiting for a reply. You must be reallllllly busy!
Arik,
I am sorry, this can get confusing for me when I am asked so many questions on so many forums. What question do you wish me to answer? Are you saying that the question was asked in 2015 and I haven't answered it yet?
And by the way, Arik, how are you. It does seem like it has been quite a while since you and I conversed. Did you enjoy the holidays?
Post a Comment