MASS MAILING OF GREAT CONTROVERSY

[Aliensanctuary]

I think that someone might pick up and read a well-written magazine that can point them in the right direction, that of wanting to get to know God and his Kingdom better. Back in the days in which I never attended any church, when I went to the laundromat to wash clothes, I would read a tract if someone left one there. I don't think that what was written was anything that could wake me up, but at least I was exposed to what some believed about the Kingdom. Maybe literature is more of a seed-sowing adventure which lacks the power needed to transform a life until the human element is added. Without the seeds there can be no life, and without the human element there can be no life.

[phkrause]

18 hours ago, JoeMo said:

In today's culture, a lot of people crave personal interaction.  I tried for years to bring people to church by passing out tracts and inviting people to SDA evangelistic series.  It never worked.  A couple years ago, God "made" me start a Bible Study at work.  What started out hesitantly has evolved into a small group - much closer than an office Bible study.  We pray together, study together, and cry/laugh together.  We are all so blessed!  What is so cool is that I don't even need to preach Adventism.  They discover the things we believe through our study and conversation!  So far, God has brought us a JW (now a former JW) and a very open-minded Catholic!  I'm so blessed that God can use a dirtbag like me!  This way is much more effective (at least in personal evangelism) than mass mailing.

I agree, personal evangelism is better than most forms of witnessing.

[JoeMo]

Jackson,

Look around you.  Do you see militant Catholicism posing an imminent threat to the stability of western civilization?  Is there any militant movement in another world religion that is posing and imminent threat to the stability of western civilization (hint - they started in the Middle East and are currently moving into Western Europe)?

EGW's end-time visions were accurate (the issues at the end time will be who we worship); she just applied them to the wrong world religious power.  If we as watchers for the second coming blind ourselves to all other end-time scenarios except those involving the papacy, there is a big chance that we will lose the battle before we even realize we are in one.  We need to encourage people to be ready for Jesus to come under any and all scenarios rather than focus on one specific scenario.  Where do we stand with Jesus is much more important than who we stand against.

[CoAspen]

Quote

 We need to encourage people to be ready for Jesus to come under any and all scenarios rather than focus on one specific scenario.  Where do we stand with Jesus is much more important than who we stand against.

Absolutely, that is the gospel.

Quote

 It is the judgment that determines our fate, and it is the judgment that we are to be prepared for. 

If we are standing with Jesus, that there is no fear of the Judgement.

[Robert]

11 hours ago, CoAspen said:

Absolutely, that is the gospel.

And which gospel is that?

Gal 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

[Robert]

18 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Jackson,

Look around you.  Do you see militant Catholicism posing an imminent threat to the stability of western civilization?  Is there any militant movement in another world religion that is posing and imminent threat to the stability of western civilization (hint - they started in the Middle East and are currently moving into Western Europe)?

2 Cor 11:4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough....

Mankind is by nature legalistic.  Oh sure, he will admit that he makes mistakes, but he doesn't look at himself as "vile" when compared to the righteousness of Christ.  Therefore it is rather easy to accept a false gospel in which merit can be gained. 

Writing of those who present a "different gospel" Paul states: 13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve...

Ellen White: "The opinion prevails with many that all which appears like courtesy or refinement must, in some sense, pertain to Christ. Never was there a greater mistake. These qualities should grace the character of every Christian, for they would exert a powerful influence in favor of true religion; but they must be consecrated to God, or they also are a power for evil. Many a man of cultured intellect and pleasant manners, who would not stoop to what is commonly regarded as an immoral act, is but a polished instrument in the hands of Satan. The insidious, deceptive character of his influence and example renders him a more dangerous enemy to the cause of Christ than are those who are ignorant and uncultured." [GC 509]

In short, if you want to have power over the church; if you think that you are Christ's Vicar then you get power using sugar rather than vinegar. 

When John Dalberg-Acton opposed the new doctrine of papal infallibility in the First Vatican Council, he did so because he realized the corrupting influence of absolute power.  In opposing this haughty doctrine he wrote:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."  

The problem with the Catholicism is that it presents another gospel (i.e., "the immaculate conception") and gives the Pope power (i.e., "the Vicar of Christ") that God Himself has not bestowed upon him.  

 

[Robert]

[CoAspen]

Jackson...missing the point.

[Robert]

13 hours ago, jackson said:

Being sincerely ignorant of God's requirements for us is no excuse for disobedience when the truth is available. 

"Sundaykeeping is not yet the mark of the beast" [7BC 977]

"The Sabbath will be the great test of loyalty, for it is the point of truth especially controverted. When the final test shall be brought to bear upon men, then the line of distinction will be drawn between those who serve God and those who serve Him not." [GC 605]

The Sabbath, as a sign of justification by faith, and Sunday are future issues.  No one going to church on Sunday has the mark of the beast.  No one going on the Sabbath has a direct line to the pearly gates. 

The Sabbath is vitally linked to the gospel. Before the Sabbath can be understood we must first present the gospel.  Currently Adventism presents a least 5 different gospels*. So when the church unites and proclaims the gospel then the Sabbath will be understood. 

*  [ http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NelFjDA6L._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg ] 

[Robert]

13 hours ago, jackson said:

The angel of Rev 14 says to all "professing believers" "Fear God.....for the hour of His judgment is come." Why the warning? Why not just say "if you are standing with Jesus, don't worry about the judgment to come"?

Let's look at the context to see the real issue:

“Fear God and give Him glory, for the hour of His judgment has come. Worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water.”

We are to give God the glory and not ourselves.  Self-righteousness gives who the glory?  Us!  Pretending to be Christ's Vicar gives who the glory?

Paul says, "God forbid that I should glory, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ..." Gal 6:14

Babylon will fall because she glories in herself. Even more, she* exalts herself  "above all that is called God or is worshipped, so that he** sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself as God." 2 Thess 2:4

"To the extent that she glorified herself and lived luxuriously, so give her torment and sorrow; for in her heart she says, ‘I sit as a queen, and am no widow, and will see no sorrow.’ Therefore her plagues will come in one day— death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her." Rev 18:7-8

* refers to a fallen church (i.e., an apostatized people)

** refers to the "man of sin"

[JoeMo]

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 10:51 AM, Robert said:

The problem with the Catholicism is that it presents another gospel (i.e., "the immaculate conception") and gives the Pope power (i.e., "the Vicar of Christ") that God Himself has not bestowed upon him.  

That "problem" only has power if a majority of people believe it.  Even most Catholics - including Pope Francis - don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope.  Concerning the immaculate conception, looking at it from a purely theological Catholic standpoint (Mary was a sinless virgin until the day she died), most Catholics don't buy it (no different than many SDA's rejecting the infallibility of EGW).  Most Catholics believe Mary was a virgin when she conceived Christ (i.e., no human male was involved in the conception of Christ); but have no opinion of her virginity after that time..  I can buy that.

[Kevin H]

On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 5:14 PM, JoeMo said:

That "problem" only has power if a majority of people believe it.  Even most Catholics - including Pope Francis - don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope.  Concerning the immaculate conception, looking at it from a purely theological Catholic standpoint (Mary was a sinless virgin until the day she died), most Catholics don't buy it (no different than many SDA's rejecting the infallibility of EGW).  Most Catholics believe Mary was a virgin when she conceived Christ (i.e., no human male was involved in the conception of Christ); but have no opinion of her virginity after that time..  I can buy that.

Now JoeMo, you know that we Seventh-day Adventists do not believe that Mrs. White is infallible because the perfect pen of inspiration wrote that she is not infallible and commands us not to see her as infallible, it's just that she never made any mistakes.

Actually while I can live with what you described as being able to live with about the Catholics. But sadly there are indeed Catholics and other Eastern Orthodoxs who do believe that Mary was the sinless virgin until she died. Sadly there was an argument between an Eastern Orthodox and a Protestant who I respect on this question where while the Protestant gave excellent Biblical and historical answers, the Eastern Orthodox person could not see what the difference was between the Protestant's use of history and just turning to the Church Fathers for guidance. And in response the Protestant sadly presented the truth in a way that was very antagonistic, unkind  and argumentative. Giving the truth but in a very bad spirit.

This is also what bother's me about the mass mailing of the Great Controversy. I love that book. But she tells us that she found it difficult to balance between sharing our concerns about the Papacy and not being anti-Catholic. And she was even worried about that in a world that was more open to the Catholic Criticisms. Her frustrations about balancing between the two would be even more noted in today's world. (I would not mind the White Estate doing a version of the Great Controversy which also includes an additional forward of passages where Mrs. White expressed this concern she had of the book.)  and again fear that those who are mass-mailing these books are sharing the right truth but given in an unkind spirit.

[Kevin H]

As with Sunday laws and the Mark of the Beast. We need to study what Mrs. White says and what she DOESN"T say. We have built a whole tradition as to how exactly it is to work out. Probably designed by the same demons who designed the whole Jewish tradition of exactly what was to happen with the Messiah came.

Mrs. White sees a LARGER issue where Sabbath and Sunday are just an example of. The issue she is concerned with is liberty of conscience. Sunday laws were a way of telling some people that they are not allowed to follow the Bible according to the dictates of their conscience. I know it's hard to conceive with what happened in San Antonio last summer, but our pioneers were people who were thrown out of their beloved churches for being free thinkers. They agreed on a few landmarks, but they wanted to design a church that was not going to throw them out for not submitting to group think. As long as they were not fanatical and that there was indeed Biblical evidence that can stand the test of study, that they were free to hold different views on the non-landmarks.  Mrs. White also says that the Sabbath-Sunday issue is going to play a role in the CHRISTIAN (i.e. Western) world and indicates that she sees other tests for other cultures and situations. Under the 7th head everyone would have to give up some principle of conscience for the good of the group.

Sadly our tradition does not deal with this. I've heard a number of sermons on 3ABN Radio where the difference between keeping Sabbath and Sunday are that we have a higher court enforcing Sabbath laws. We have a tendency to use the same spirit of Sunday laws with the Sabbath and that the issue is who has the more important court, earthly nations or God. As long as we appeal to our tradition and this spirit we will not be preaching the Sabbath more fully.

[Robert]

On 4/13/2016 at 5:14 PM, JoeMo said:

That "problem" only has power if a majority of people believe it.  Even most Catholics - including Pope Francis - don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope. 

Do you have evidence?

Quote

 Most Catholics believe Mary was a virgin when she conceived Christ (i.e., no human male was involved in the conception of Christ); but have no opinion of her virginity after that time..  I can buy that.

You completely missed the point.  Mary was not immaculate.  She was not unblemished and spotless. She was not without sin.  She was a fallen child of Adam. 

At the carnation the Divinity of Christ was united to our corporate, fallen life and thus Christ was made "the son of man".

[Robert]

22 hours ago, Kevin H said:

....she tells us that she found it difficult to balance between sharing our concerns about the Papacy and not being anti-Catholic.

I think it is a no win situation.  If you call the Pope "anti-Christ" Catholics are going to charge you with being anti-Catholic.

[JoeMo]

3 minutes ago, Robert said:

I think it is a no win situation.  If you call the Pope "anti-Christ" Catholics are going to charge you with being anti-Catholic.

Yeah; and if people accused EGW of being possessed by a demon we would say they were anti-SDA.  What's the difference?

[Robert]

18 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

Yeah; and if people accused EGW of being possessed by a demon we would say they were anti-SDA.  What's the difference?

Do you know how the Bible defines "anti-Christ".  Keep in mind there are many "anti-Christs"!

[Robert]

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (Greek: Sarx). This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

 

[Robert]

21 minutes ago, Robert said:

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (Greek: Sarx). This is a deceiver and an anti-christ.

Now, if you think this isn't serious, then look at what Paul states:   "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal 1:9

To be accursed is nothing less than the 2nd death - which is goodbye to life forever because God has abandoned those who reject the gospel. 

What is the gospel, in a nutshell?

At the incarnation God united the Divinity of Christ to our fallen, humanity in the womb of Mary.  In other words, “He (Christ as God) took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature...."  {MM 181.3}  

Why?

Well, if you go with the independent ministries it is so we can overcome the flesh just like Christ.  In other words they pervert the gospel and make it legalistic.

The real reason Christ as God assumed "OUR" (not His) sinful nature is so He could legally fulfill His Father's law.

First Christ had to obey God's law perfectly in our fallen, corporate life.  This answered the positive demands of God's law, "obey & live"!

But because the Divinity of Christ assumed our fallen, condemned life, it had to die the curse.  So on the cross "our old self was crucified with Christ (as God) so that the sinful body might be done away with". (Romans 6:6).  Hence "You died to the law (it demanded your death) in the body of Christ" (Romans 7:4).  Therefore when "One died, all died".

[phkrause]

14 hours ago, JoeMo said:

Yeah; and if people accused EGW of being possessed by a demon we would say they were anti-SDA.  What's the difference?

The difference is in the fact!! That Ellen points us to the Bible and the Pope does not, he claims that he is Christ!!

[Robert]

2 hours ago, phkrause said:

The difference is in the fact!! That Ellen points us to the Bible and the Pope does not, he claims that he is Christ!!

Ellen White: "In regard to infallibility, I NEVER claimed it; God ALONE is Infallible."  [SM1  pp 415 and 37]

Papal infallibility: "A dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error "When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church."

"Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact confirmed by the Church's magisterium."

1] The immaculate conception of Mary teaches that Mary was born sinless, i.e., without sin.  

2] The assumption of Mary states that she entered heaven upon her death.

 

[Kevin H]

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility came in the 1800s. But due to this doctrine in the 1960s the church had to deal with Vatican II. If it was not for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility they would have just declared Pope John XXIII a heretic, but due to the doctrine of Papal Infallibility they did not get this option. And shows how the Holy Spirit can take advantages of situations.

[JoeMo]

11 hours ago, phkrause said:

The difference is in the fact!! That Ellen points us to the Bible and the Pope does not, he claims that he is Christ!!

That might have been the story written by one Taliban Cardinal over 100 years ago; but trust me - the past several Popes have NOT believed that they were Christ.  Even if they did, almost avery Catholic (at least in the western world)  would reject that idea.  I think the exact quote is that the Pope represents Christ here on earth; not that He is Christ.  I might be wrong.

[Robert]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

I think the exact quote is that the Pope represents Christ here on earth; not that He is Christ.  I might be wrong.

No matter how anyone twists it, the title Holy Father or His Holiness is a reference to the Pope, not his office. 

"The pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks. Does the pope accord a favour or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ who accords the favour or pronounces that anathema. So that when the pope speaks we have no business to examine." [Catholic National July 1895]

[phkrause]

20 hours ago, Robert said:

No matter how anyone twists it, the title Holy Father or His Holiness is a reference to the Pope, not his office. 

"The pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks. Does the pope accord a favour or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ who accords the favour or pronounces that anathema. So that when the pope speaks we have no business to examine." [Catholic National July 1895]

Unfortunately I have to agree!!