Revelation Today 2013: Ron Halverson Speaker

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.) 

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. 

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.

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:

Revelation Today: The MARK of the BEAST

• 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.

•  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. 

Link: The official documentation. I would extend a challenge to my SDA friends about the supposed change of the Sabbath. And, here's a link the early church writings about the Sabbath and 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.

Revelation Today--SDA Pastor John Bradshaw's Series

Ah, this ongoing series brings back so many childhood memories--as this is exactly the same Revelation Seminars the SDA church has always put on. I  thought something would be new, something other than the newest world tragedies. 

This is the exact same program format and topics, the same its-so-obvious-and-Biblical--no-question-about-it-delivery as has been done all over the SDA world for the last fifty years. Same world-toppling scare tactics, same bogey-man. The only thing missing is the Seventh-day Adventist name. But, interestingly, the name of the church sponsoring on the program has been missing for several of the last Revelation seminars. 

I will spare you all the observations I had about the down-undah enthusiastic Pastor John Bradshaw, (they were all good) and Yves Monnier the host at the Las Vegas Cashman Center (I’m sure he is a nice guy). 

Let’s be honest. The whole thing is about the Sabbath in these seminars, all else is just the golden halo around it. The Sabbath doctrine, if wrong, is where Adventism stands or falls. For them it is the cornerstone of their theology. Without it all their raison d’etre would be crying “Jesus is coming again, soon” along with every other denomination out there.

Why not just tackle that subject and be done with it.

You see, Adventists very subtly set up false premises then prove the false premises wrong and shout victory. For those not educated in scripture and who don’t ponder what is being taught, it is all shivers and good bumps awaiting the end of time when Adventists become top billing in the cosmic horror show, Armageddon.

Yet if we examine what is taught, seeing where a little is added here and there to scripture, a slight shift in the direction, a tiny misinterpretation--we will see how that shift can lead you completely off the road into a theological ditch. And a dark scary one too!

Watch how it is done:

1st wrong premise: The Church claim is that the “Everlasting gospel” of the Third Angel’s Message in Revelation is a different gospel, a different end time message than that of Christ and the Apostles.

Wrong: The Greek word agonies (everlasting) means “since the beginning, without beginning and end” so this is not something new. The word for gospel is eujaggevlion and is the exact same word used throughout the New Testament for the gospel proclaimed by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. This isn’t anything different. It means The Messiah is God and came as a human to suffer, die and be resurrected for our sins. Nothing anywhere at all about Sabbath in that. 

This new and everlasting gospel (different from what the Apostles passed on) was given to the Seventh-day Adventists alone. They claim that in the last days there will be a divide between those who worship God the Creator and those who worship the creation. Well enough, okay on the idea that Christians and non-Christians will divide on how creation occurred. But then they add something outside of anything in scripture. 

2nd wrong premise: Then the church links this true and false worship of the creation back to the story of Genesis claiming that on the seventh day God gave us a day rest as an eternal commandment. 

There is nothing in the Genesis story that says the 7th day was a literal day. Please go back and read a fascinating fact. All the other days had an evening and morning. Not so with the seventh day as it was supposed to be an eternal day of rest. The idea of the day being a weekly day of rest is an addition to the text. 

Little shifts, little shifts set them on a totally wrong course!

3rd wrong premise: Then Pastor Bradshaw jumps to the Ten Commandments. And claims that because they were written on stone means it is an eternal covenant for all time.

Another false assumption. If you do a word search you will find that throughout the Old Testament, many times, stone and rock symbolize God himself, not an eternal covenant. 

Also if they writing them on a stone was supposed to mean how eternal they were, why would Moses smash them after leaving the presence of God? God wasn't upset with him for doing it either. I would think if the stones had that kind of symbolism, God would have mentioned to Moses to care for them a little better.

4th wrong premise: The weekly Sabbath was an eternal sign. (Bradshaw uses Ezekiel 20: 12 for proof.)

Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

But please note that the sabbaths are a sign--the high annuals sabbaths as well as the weekly sabbaths. (See Deu. 6: 1, 8; 11: 18; 28: 46)

These sabbath signs for Israel absolutely including Passover: 

Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day shall be a feast to Jehovah.... And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the law of Jehovah may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath Jehovah brought thee out of Egypt. Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in its season from year to year. Ex. 13: 6-10

So if the sabbaths are a sign for everyone, then we should be keeping all the sabbaths, the annual, monthly and weekly. 

5th wrong premise: That the Sabbath was not just for Israel alone, but all of us, even today. Again, the Bible would disagree with the SDA church on this claim.

Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily ye shall keep my sabbaths: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am Jehovah who sanctifieth you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to Jehovah: whosoever doeth any work on the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.  Ex. 31: 13-17

There are some important things to note about this. Though God reckons the Sabbath back to creation, He also does not include anyone else in the sabbath requirement making it between God and the children of Israel forever.

The fact that God sanctified a day at creation doesn’t mean it was meant to be universal. And keep in mind that anyone who profanes the day is to be put to death. If Adventists really believed that the sabbath requirement was for Christians today, they would then have to impose the death penalty. 

Bradshaw quipped that “they weren’t Ten suggestions.” Well Pastor Bradshaw, we have to be honest with the text, the commandment to put to death anyone who profanes the sabbath is not a suggestion. It is a direct command.

6th wrong premise: Then Pastor Bradshaw jumped to the New Testament and reminded us that Jesus didn’t come to destroy the law, but fulfill it.

And that is exactly what He did at the cross.

For the SDAs to teach that we are still required to keep Sabbath is saying that Jesus didn’t fulfill the law at the Cross. Hebrews tells us that the Sabbath was a shadow fulfilled in Christ. 

But, he asks, “Are we now allowed to kill? Steal?  Jesus didn’t do away with the Ten Commandment law.

Right, and wrong.

Jesus expanded the Old Covenant at the same time He fulfilled it. 

The Temple sacrifice--with all its rituals and ordinations--wasn't done away with, but replaced by a much better, in fact, perfect one-time sacrifice of God's only Son. God didn't get rid of them, He fulfilled them. The Ten Commandments were, like the sacrifices, pointing to a permanent, eternal Covenant with a new and better set of laws.

Look at Jesus’ words. “You have heard it said” These are not the words of someone reiterating the gravity of the law--Jesus didn’t even source it as God’s! He just spoke, “You have heard it said, ‘you shall not...’ But I SAY.” This is Jesus taking authority over His Ten Commandments and changing them, reforming them, making them into the more perfect law of the New Covenant. They are better--expanded. But different. 

How did Jesus expand the fourth? Adventist might claim that He didn’t say anything about that one. Yet he didn’t say anything about stealing either, but it was expanded. Now we are to give rather than receive. Now we are to give our cloak instead of our shirt when someone tried to rob us of what is rightfully ours. Later Jesus will say “come all ye who are weary and I will give you rest. 

Hebrews tells us that the sabbath shadow was fulfilled in Christ. Sabbath hasn’t disappeared but our Sabbath rest is Christ, the day has expanded to a forever day--an eternal day of rest from the Creation account itself. The curse has been lifted and the original creation plan of an eternal rest with a 7th day without an "evening and morning” has finally been fulfilled in Christ.

It isn’t wrong to keep a day that is a rest once a week. That is fine. In fact Paul says:

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days. Col 2:16

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. Rom. 14: 5

7th wrong premise: Then Pastor Bradshaw makes the false assumption that since the Apostles went to the synagogue, they were keeping sabbath. This is just full of erroneous assumptions. 

The Apostles worshipped everyday and preached daily. Being in a synagogue on Sabbath isn’t keeping the Sabbath commandment to rest. It is showing up where Jews will be. 

Adventists draw a direct line between a Sabbath rest and someone going to a synagogue on Sabbath (as if worshipping and resting are one in the same). This is a non-sequitor. 

There is not one shred of evidence in the Bible post resurrection that the Apostles rested on Sabbath or commanded anyone to rest on Sabbath. The 4th commandment is a requirement for Israel to rest.

8th wrong premise: The pastor claims that Jesus' warning to pray that the Hebrew’s flight out of Jerusalem in the last days not be in winter or the sabbath (Matt.24:20) is a slam dunk for proving sabbatarianism post-Cross. Yet, this is hardly proof. Christ knew that His followers would be preaching in the Temple every day (Acts 2:46). The slaughter the Romans could acheive would be most devastating on Sabbath because so many Jews would be there too. It is a prayer for Jews because it would be especially hard for them to flee if caught inside the Temple on Sabbath, in winter or if they were pregnant.

It isn’t calling on his disciples to keep the sabbath as a perpetual sign. We know the Apostles were in the temple daily! So the warning wasn’t pray to keep from being attacked on an obligatory sabbath service, but as intercession for their brother Israel. 

End of Part I-