What are Prostestants ProtestinG?

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: JoeMo

As long as we are exposing evil infidel heretic satanic writers, let's not forget that sleeze ball C.S. Lewis (author of "Chronicles of Narnia"). Comparing Christ to a lion - really? And his church to a bunch of children and misfits? OOHH the pain!

Seriously - how many of you that are "satanizing" "Left Behind" and the writings of Tolkien and Rowling ever read the books? You might be suprised at the blessings and spiritual insights these books contain.

Did you know that Tolkien's and Lewis' books were banned by various countries and denominations for several years?

I've read Tolkien, several times over in my years away from the church. I have to agree that the Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit are poison for young minds. It's true there are good things in the books, but those good things are what make them so dangerous as they are mixed with Satanic teachings such as spiritualism. Poison mixed with healthy food is still poisonous. The healthy food just makes the poison appear good for you but the poison will still kill you in the end.

I find any argument that says spiritualism masquerading as good literature for young Christian minds to be a very dangerous argument for said minds.

I totally agree with you here.

sky

[joeb]

Teaching the Bible or the SoP is teaching spiritualism in the sense that it teaches us how to interact with God; and pulls the curtain back on things that are happening in the spiritual realm that we wouldn't otherwise know. The thing about the so-called "spiritualism" taught in the Bible and that written about by Tolkien, Lewis, and Rawlings is that the Bible is a non-fictional book (for those who believe it to be so); and the other books are documented certified fiction - make believe stories - it says so right in the books.

There are fictional stories in the Bible, also. For example - the so-called "spirit" conjured up by the witch for King Saul; and the story of Lazarus laying in the busom of Abaraham. Am I to conclude from those stories that the soul is unconditionally immortal, that we go to heaven or hell as soon as we die; and the right person can call out souls back to earth? About as much as I believe that Hemione's (character in Harry Potter's Book) spell "Leviosa" means anything other than "rise" in Latin. Or that Frodo's ring of power actually existed at one time. People have brains; and if they are intelligent enough to read these books, they are intelligent enough to discern fact from fiction.

So - yes, teaching spiritualism as God outlines in the Bible is good. Reading a novel is different than studying scripture. One is done for learning and growth; the other is done for entertainment. Say what you want about the books - they beat the heck out of the garbage that passes for entertainment on most TV channels.

OK. Thanks, JoeMo. I heartily disagree, as you well know, but I appreciate you giving me your reasoning.

[joeb]

I totally agree with you here.

sky

Well, I guess we have to agree on something....

[skyblue888]

Teaching the Bible or the SoP is teaching spiritualism in the sense that it teaches us how to interact with God; and pulls the curtain back on things that are happening in the spiritual realm that we wouldn't otherwise know. The thing about the so-called "spiritualism" taught in the Bible and that written about by Tolkien, Lewis, and Rawlings is that the Bible is a non-fictional book (for those who believe it to be so); and the other books are documented certified fiction - make believe stories - it says so right in the books.

There are fictional stories in the Bible, also. For example - the so-called "spirit" conjured up by the witch for King Saul; and the story of Lazarus laying in the busom of Abaraham. Am I to conclude from those stories that the soul is unconditionally immortal, that we go to heaven or hell as soon as we die; and the right person can call out souls back to earth? About as much as I believe that Hemione's (character in Harry Potter's Book) spell "Leviosa" means anything other than "rise" in Latin. Or that Frodo's ring of power actually existed at one time. People have brains; and if they are intelligent enough to read these books, they are intelligent enough to discern fact from fiction.

So - yes, teaching spiritualism as God outlines in the Bible is good. Reading a novel is different than studying scripture. One is done for learning and growth; the other is done for entertainment. Say what you want about the books - they beat the heck out of the garbage that passes for entertainment on most TV channels.

There are fictional stories in the Bible, also. For example -the so-called "spirit" conjured up by the witch for King Saul

___________

What Joe??? There is nothing fictional about this story. What makes you think so? The witch of Endor was a real witch who had connection with the spirits of devils and it was the devil himself who appeared in the form of the prophet Samuel.

As to the story of Lazarus laying in the bosom of Abraham it is a simple allegory based on Jewish traditions not to teach a truth but to make a point.

sky

[joeb]

There are fictional stories in the Bible, also. For example -the so-called "spirit" conjured up by the witch for King Saul

What??? There is nothing fictional about this story. What makes you think so? The witch of Endor was a real witch who had connection with the spirits of devils and it was the devil himself who appeared in the form of the prophet Samuel.

As to the story of Lazarus laying in the busom of Abaraham it is a simple allegory based on Jewish traditions not to teach a truth but to make a point.

sky

Wow. Look at this. We agree again.... Actually we agree a on a lot of things.

[skyblue888]

As to what are protestants protesting, here is something worth reading:

The "organized work" will spend much time and effort and money, and will travel long distances to many places, to maintain and defend the full and perfect right of every individual to believe for himself, without any dictation or interference by the State. And all of this is perfectly right. But this is not Protestant, in truth.

The Protestant principle as such applies first of all to the church. It must never be forgotten that this principle as originally espoused, primarily had no reference whatever to the State, but only to the church and its "organized work." Secondarily it related to the State, because the State was only the tool of the church. And when by the Constitution of the United States, church and State became separated, the principle applies, of course, equally to the State as to the church.

But primarily and through all Protestant history the principle applies to the church. And now for Seventh-day Adventists, or anybody else, to confine it exclusively or even primarily to the State, and deny it as to the church, is a total perversion of it, and exactly repeats the same perverse course of every denomination before.

Therefore, when the "organized work" applies this first of all Protestant principles to the State and then refuses it as to the church, as they do, it is absolutely inconsistent in itself, and unprotestant as to the principle; it is not fairly Protestant to protest against Rome, and then follow Rome's very course.

It is not fairly Protestant to protest even against false Protestantism only in some things, while repeating other things that are just as falsely Protestant and more Romish. For who ever heard of any other Protestant teaching that "In Peter... believers are united in the Holy Ghost"? Review & Herald, May 2, 1907, p.10.

Further: You maintain that when the State holds strictly to this principle of perfect freedom of conscience and individuality in religion, that is according to Christian principle. But you will not allow that your own church, shall hold this attitude, which you insist that the State must hold. In this, then, you require that the State shall be more Christian than your own church. Any abridgement or interference whatever with this full and perfect right of the individual by the State, the Seventh-day Adventist "organized work" will vigorously deny over yonder on Capitol Hill. But you positively affirm it for your own church over here on Takoma Park Hill.

You insist that your church shall hold and exercise this very power that you deny to the State. Then it is certain that, as the Seventh-day Adventist "organized work" stands, all of the people are better off only as citizens of the United States, than they would be as members of the Seventh-day Adventist church. For so long as they are only citizens of the United States, your "organized work" will spend time and money and energy strongly and continuously to maintain their perfect right in the exercise of private judgment and their own individuality, in religion. But the moment they become members of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, that right is absolutely denied; and if they attempt to exercise it, then the "organized work" will spend time and money and energy in vigorously denying the right and denouncing them, and casting them out, even without any notice or hearing.

And all this as to this Protestant principle is witnessed by your own acknowledged authoritative writings. In Great Controversy, page 293, there is mentioned "that great principle, the outgrowth of the New Testament, which acknowledges God as the SOLE JUDGE of human faith;" and then there follow these weighty and most pertinent words:

"The doctrine that God has committed to the church the right to control the conscience, and to define and punish heresy is one of the most deeply rooted of papal errors."

Is that papal error so deeply rooted in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination and "organized work" that it can not be rooted up? Is it so deeply rooted there that it must remain and grow into another great papal tree of religious despotism in the church? Even if this be so, there must not be forgotten the Divine Word that "Every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up."

My brethren, far better will it be to allow that papal error to be rooted up now by the gentle grace of the Holy Spirit, than to refuse this now, and then have it rooted up by the awful hand of the mighty God in that great and hastening day. O! choose now, to have it rooted up now." A.T. Jones

Something to think about!

sky

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

There are fictional stories in the Bible, also. For example -the so-called "spirit" conjured up by the witch for King Saul

What??? There is nothing fictional about this story. What makes you think so? The witch of Endor was a real witch who had connection with the spirits of devils and it was the devil himself who appeared in the form of the prophet Samuel.

As to the story of Lazarus laying in the busom of Abaraham it is a simple allegory based on Jewish traditions not to teach a truth but to make a point.

sky

Wow. Look at this. We agree again.... Actually we agree a on a lot of things.

[Gail]

Quote:

Further: You maintain that when the State holds strictly to this principle of perfect freedom of conscience and individuality in religion, that is according to Christian principle. But you will not allow that your own church, shall hold this attitude, which you insist that the State must hold. In this, then, you require that the State shall be more Christian than your own church. Any abridgement or interference whatever with this full and perfect right of the individual by the State, the Seventh-day Adventist "organized work" will vigorously deny over yonder on Capitol Hill. But you positively affirm it for your own church over here on Takoma Park Hill.

I think I saw this church when I was in Takoma Park. I saw A church in Takoma Park... :)

[JoeMo]

Just to clarify - I don't think the narrative about Saul visiting the witch of Endor is fiction. The part that I think is fiction is that this witch actually conjured up the spirit of Samuel (It was a demon spirit masquerading as Samuel, if anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about). One has to know other parts of scripture to know that this part is fiction; just like people have to know other parts of scripture to know that Lazarus was not actually lying in the busom of Abe.

SKY and GAIL,

I really appreciated your posts concerning the "organized work"! Thank you for posting that!

[skyblue888]

When were you there Gail? :)

[Gail]

When were you there Gail?

In November. My son lives about a block away.

[debbym]

Quote:

In many 'christian' homes I see the Left Behind series, the Hobit and Lord of the Rings all on the same book self; deservedly so. It occurs to me that most do not have any idea how deep this invasion goes to win the mind and soul for Satan.

Tolkien was a Christian author. He influenced c.s. Lewis to become a Christian. i don't think we are to sit in any judgement seat on Christians of other persuasions, Protestant or Catholic, or Orthodox.

from

http://www.omaha.com/article/20121230/LIVING/712309942

"1. A sense of providence, a divine guiding hand in events that can seem like luck. One example is when Bilbo finds the ring with magical powers while stumbling around in the dark inside a mountain. Unlikely? Sure, but meant to be.

2. Purpose. Bilbo needs to go on the quest to grow into all he's supposed to be, Brown said. “It will be the making of him.”

3. Moral sensibility. When Bilbo is invisible and considers killing the evil Gollum with a sword, he decides it's not fair. He has pity. “Tolkien makes it clear there is a right decision,” Brown said. “It may take some thinking, but it's there.”"

debbym

[JoeMo]

deb,

You are so eloquent! You say the things I want to say; but you sound so much better than I do!

[joeb]

Just to clarify - I don't think the narrative about Saul visiting the witch of Endor is fiction. The part that I think is fiction is that this witch actually conjured up the spirit of Samuel (It was a demon spirit masquerading as Samuel, if anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about). One has to know other parts of scripture to know that this part is fiction; just like people have to know other parts of scripture to know that Lazarus was not actually lying in the busom of Abe.

SKY and GAIL,

I really appreciated your posts concerning the "organized work"! Thank you for posting that!

Thanks for clarifying that, JoeMo. It wasn't clear at all, at least to me, in your original post.

[joeb]

As to what are protestants protesting, here is something worth reading:

The "organized work" will spend much time and effort and money, and will travel long distances to many places, to maintain and defend the full and perfect right of every individual to believe for himself, without any dictation or interference by the State. And all of this is perfectly right. But this is not Protestant, in truth.

The Protestant principle as such applies first of all to the church. It must never be forgotten that this principle as originally espoused, primarily had no reference whatever to the State, but only to the church and its "organized work." Secondarily it related to the State, because the State was only the tool of the church. And when by the Constitution of the United States, church and State became separated, the principle applies, of course, equally to the State as to the church.

But primarily and through all Protestant history the principle applies to the church. And now for Seventh-day Adventists, or anybody else, to confine it exclusively or even primarily to the State, and deny it as to the church, is a total perversion of it, and exactly repeats the same perverse course of every denomination before.

Therefore, when the "organized work" applies this first of all Protestant principles to the State and then refuses it as to the church, as they do, it is absolutely inconsistent in itself, and unprotestant as to the principle; it is not fairly Protestant to protest against Rome, and then follow Rome's very course.

It is not fairly Protestant to protest even against false Protestantism only in some things, while repeating other things that are just as falsely Protestant and more Romish. For who ever heard of any other Protestant teaching that "In Peter... believers are united in the Holy Ghost"? Review & Herald, May 2, 1907, p.10.

Further: You maintain that when the State holds strictly to this principle of perfect freedom of conscience and individuality in religion, that is according to Christian principle. But you will not allow that your own church, shall hold this attitude, which you insist that the State must hold. In this, then, you require that the State shall be more Christian than your own church. Any abridgement or interference whatever with this full and perfect right of the individual by the State, the Seventh-day Adventist "organized work" will vigorously deny over yonder on Capitol Hill. But you positively affirm it for your own church over here on Takoma Park Hill.

You insist that your church shall hold and exercise this very power that you deny to the State. Then it is certain that, as the Seventh-day Adventist "organized work" stands, all of the people are better off only as citizens of the United States, than they would be as members of the Seventh-day Adventist church. For so long as they are only citizens of the United States, your "organized work" will spend time and money and energy strongly and continuously to maintain their perfect right in the exercise of private judgment and their own individuality, in religion. But the moment they become members of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, that right is absolutely denied; and if they attempt to exercise it, then the "organized work" will spend time and money and energy in vigorously denying the right and denouncing them, and casting them out, even without any notice or hearing.

And all this as to this Protestant principle is witnessed by your own acknowledged authoritative writings. In Great Controversy, page 293, there is mentioned "that great principle, the outgrowth of the New Testament, which acknowledges God as the SOLE JUDGE of human faith;" and then there follow these weighty and most pertinent words:

"The doctrine that God has committed to the church the right to control the conscience, and to define and punish heresy is one of the most deeply rooted of papal errors."

Is that papal error so deeply rooted in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination and "organized work" that it can not be rooted up? Is it so deeply rooted there that it must remain and grow into another great papal tree of religious despotism in the church? Even if this be so, there must not be forgotten the Divine Word that "Every plant that my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up."

My brethren, far better will it be to allow that papal error to be rooted up now by the gentle grace of the Holy Spirit, than to refuse this now, and then have it rooted up by the awful hand of the mighty God in that great and hastening day. O! choose now, to have it rooted up now." A.T. Jones

Something to think about!

sky

Sky,

Is this entire post an A.T. Jones quote, other than the last sentence? If so, where is it found?

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: JoeMo

As long as we are exposing evil infidel heretic satanic writers, let's not forget that sleeze ball C.S. Lewis (author of "Chronicles of Narnia"). Comparing Christ to a lion - really? And his church to a bunch of children and misfits? OOHH the pain!

Seriously - how many of you that are "satanizing" "Left Behind" and the writings of Tolkien and Rowling ever read the books? You might be suprised at the blessings and spiritual insights these books contain.

Did you know that Tolkien's and Lewis' books were banned by various countries and denominations for several years?

Originally Posted By: joeb

I've read Tolkien, several times over in my years away from the church. I have to agree that the Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit are poison for young minds. It's true there are good things in the books, but those good things are what make them so dangerous as they are mixed with Satanic teachings such as spiritualism. Poison mixed with healthy food is still poisonous. The healthy food just makes the poison appear good for you but the poison will still kill you in the end.

I find any argument that says spiritualism masquerading as good literature for young Christian minds to be a very dangerous argument for said minds.

I totally agree with you here.

sky

I guess there just has to be something people disagree on.

sky and joeb, I've agreed with you both on many things...but I guess here we part ways. Glad it is on something rather minor.

I also have read J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth sagas...several times apiece. I came away with a very different experience and decision.

If The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are deemed "poison for young minds", I could very well imagine your condemnation for his work, The Silmarillion.

I do know Tolkien was a deeply committed Christian, and I know that he originally said he wrote those books for the purposes of putting Scriptural characters and principles into a fantasy novel setting to illustrate deep Christian themes.

Each novel has within it the demonstration of the folly and consequences of pride, the ultimate consequence of even small just decisions (how they compound in time), the cost of fear and disunity, the consequences of betrayal and deception, and many other illustrations of Christian life application.

Read from that perspective, Tolkien succeeds quite well. The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion evidence a progression in the deepening of literature complexity Tolkien used in setting up, then illustrating, those principles. Many of the characters in those books are familiar echoes to some we see in the Bible.

When I read those novels with that background in mind, I can dispense with the fantasy and appreciate those works.

It was the world that took his works and re-set them into the familiar "Dungeons and Dragons" type role-playing games, starting with the aforementioned in 1974, 3 years after Tolkien's death. Hence, I can see where one can get the "poison for young minds" deduction - I don't agree with it, but I understand how such a conclusion can be made. Opposition from Christians did not arise until after the popularization of fantasy role-playing games in the late 1970's and early 1980's - most often with no knowledge as to who Tolkien was or how/why he wrote his works.

All they saw was hobbits, dwarves, elves, wizards, and magic swords - and saw how that was popularized. For Adventists, discovering he was a deeply committed Roman Catholic Christian only adds to the opposition.

Here, I will appeal to Paul's point in Romans 14: 22, 23. What you have in faith as a conviction, keep it so before God. We each must give an account before God. Hence - if this genre of literature is deemed unsafe by a person, I do not appeal to them to read them against their convictions. If I see these (or C.S. Lewis' works) in a person's book collection, my mind does not jump immediately to thoughts of spiritualism. If someone sees these books on my bookshelf, and makes a remark about them, I will explain it as I have here. As with every book - let the reader read and intelligently consider what is going into his/her mind.

My convictions don't label these as sinful or spiritualistic. Every book can be taken out of its context and twisted to be something to be afraid of...even the Bible.

Blessings,

[Gail]

I have heard people on both sides of the spectrum. If you come from a background of fantasy you may indeed be sensitive to that aspect and miss out on the allegory. I say may everyone be convicted in hen own mind (his or her).

Personally, I've never been big on the fantasy thing. Being a logical thinker it just fails to move me. But for some people they just seem to "get" the picture of God out of it. I do understand it- Aslan=Christ- but it doesn't have the "wow" for me that it does for others.

Other illustrations work better for me, but I don't want to be the one to destroy another's joy over something like this. :)

[joeb]

I guess there just has to be something people disagree on.

sky and joeb, I've agreed with you both on many things...but I guess here we part ways. Glad it is on something rather minor.

I also have read J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth sagas...several times apiece. I came away with a very different experience and decision.

If The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are deemed "poison for young minds", I could very well imagine your condemnation for his work, The Silmarillion.

I do know Tolkien was a deeply committed Christian, and I know that he originally said he wrote those books for the purposes of putting Scriptural characters and principles into a fantasy novel setting to illustrate deep Christian themes.

Each novel has within it the demonstration of the folly and consequences of pride, the ultimate consequence of even small just decisions (how they compound in time), the cost of fear and disunity, the consequences of betrayal and deception, and many other illustrations of Christian life application.

Read from that perspective, Tolkien succeeds quite well. The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and The Silmarillion evidence a progression in the deepening of literature complexity Tolkien used in setting up, then illustrating, those principles. Many of the characters in those books are familiar echoes to some we see in the Bible.

When I read those novels with that background in mind, I can dispense with the fantasy and appreciate those works.

It was the world that took his works and re-set them into the familiar "Dungeons and Dragons" type role-playing games, starting with the aforementioned in 1974, 3 years after Tolkien's death. Hence, I can see where one can get the "poison for young minds" deduction - I don't agree with it, but I understand how such a conclusion can be made. Opposition from Christians did not arise until after the popularization of fantasy role-playing games in the late 1970's and early 1980's - most often with no knowledge as to who Tolkien was or how/why he wrote his works.

All they saw was hobbits, dwarves, elves, wizards, and magic swords - and saw how that was popularized. For Adventists, discovering he was a deeply committed Roman Catholic Christian only adds to the opposition.

Here, I will appeal to Paul's point in Romans 14: 22, 23. What you have in faith as a conviction, keep it so before God. We each must give an account before God. Hence - if this genre of literature is deemed unsafe by a person, I do not appeal to them to read them against their convictions. If I see these (or C.S. Lewis' works) in a person's book collection, my mind does not jump immediately to thoughts of spiritualism. If someone sees these books on my bookshelf, and makes a remark about them, I will explain it as I have here. As with every book - let the reader read and intelligently consider what is going into his/her mind.

My convictions don't label these as sinful or spiritualistic. Every book can be taken out of its context and twisted to be something to be afraid of...even the Bible.

Blessings,

I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked, that we don't agree 100% on everything....

As to what I bolded, I don't find that a very good argument for Tolkien. How many committed Christians are getting sucked into all kinds of very questionable practices/beliefs? Does the fact that they're committed Christians make those practices/beliefs OK? How much New Age stuff has come into the Christian church via the conduit of "committed Christians"? How many pagan practices are condoned by, and practiced by, committed Christians?

As to Tolkien I first read him back in the late 60's--high school--and then again in the early 70's--after graduation. Even back then the spiritualistic stuff bothered me, and so did it when I read it as a hedonist.

[Ted Oplinger]

Well, to each our own. We have different experiences. Absolutely shocking two different people look at the same thing and come away with different experiences, I tell you! Another episode of True Revelations!

As said before - we each must consider what to put in our minds, and be accountable to Christ for that.

Blessings,

[M. T. Cross]

Tolkiens books where very deeply rooted in the Nordic Edda's and Saga's. While I have no doubt he was a committed Christian, that is where he got the names of his characters, much of the lore, and he made mention of Gandalf being based on Odin's wanderer aspect.

By doing this he helped keep interest alive in Nordic lore without cheapening it the way others live Marvel have done.

[joeb]

Tolkiens books where very deeply rooted in the Nordic Edda's and Saga's. While I have no doubt he was a committed Christian, that is where he got the names of his characters, much of the lore, and he made mention of Gandalf being based on Odin's wanderer aspect.

By doing this he helped keep interest alive in Nordic lore without cheapening it the way others live Marvel have done.

Thanks for making my point for me. His books are rehashed pagan lore. Dressing up pagan lore with a few Christian ideas is probably the most deceptive way there is of introducing pagan ideas into Christianity. While Tolkien may have honestly thought he was doing the right thing, he was honestly wrong in that belief.

This is basically the exact same thing the Catholic church did and nothing good has come from it.

[M. T. Cross]

I'm not making your point. That pagan lore is not Satanism

[Tom Wetmore]

The problem with us Christians is that we judge others by our own beliefs as if they had the same revelation of God we have and the same opportunities to learn and understand God. All other views are not automatically Satanic.

Maybe the beliefs they had were the result of the only light they had about God and their theology was based on their interpretation of the limited evidence they saw.

It is like the old story of the blind men describing an elephant. The blind man grasping the elephant's tail is going to have a far different perspective than the blind man feeling its ear or the one grasping its tusk. But they all have a correct view of the part of the elephant within their reach.

We must recognize that we may be just one of the blind men too.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

How many committed Christians are getting sucked into all kinds of very questionable practices/beliefs? Does the fact that they're committed Christians make those practices/beliefs OK? How much New Age stuff has come into the Christian church via the conduit of "committed Christians"? How many pagan practices are condoned by, and practiced by, committed Christians?

I guess I could kind of turn those questions around. How many of those "questionable" practices did pagans or New Agers originally borrow from monotheisn (I say that rather than Christianity becuse it happened before Christ was born) and adapt to their religion? The Bible talks about God's people meditating and God appearing to people in dreams and visions as early as the time of Abraham. Who's to say that early pagan/New Age religions didn't take these practices from monotheists and adapt them to their own purposes? Mabe the "chosen" people blessed pagans/New Agers by teaching them these practices. Who's to say we're not just taking back that which our forefathers relied on thousands of years ago? (I think I know the answer - were her initials EGW?? I can see the quotes raining in!)

[joeb]

I'm not making your point. That pagan lore is not Satanism

Ummmm.... You're going to have to point out where I said anything was Satanic. What I said was mixing paganism and Christianity is not a good idea. It leads to a combination of the two, and that is not a good idea for Christianity.

For instance, when the Catholics brought pagan practices into Christianity they brought in idol/icon worship and sun worship. Both practices are against the 10 commandments. They also claimed to change the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week to the first day of the week. In other words, they claimed the authority to change the law of God without any support from the Bible and said that their authority to do so was none other than the fact that they changed the law....

They also claim their priests have the ability to forgive sins and that the mother of Christ should be worshipped. In fact they claim Mary must intercede between Jesus and sinners. All this is complete nonsense, Biblically speaking. The total effect of all this is to reduce the power, glory, and the perception of the love of God for humanity.

All of these acts should be abhorrent to any Bible student that is serious about following the God of the Bible. That's not saying we should condemn those who don't know better, but we should never allow non-Biblical practices to corrupt our worship of God and influence us to follow someone other than God Himself through accepting what the Bible says are falsehoods.

At the root of the SDA concept of the Great Controversy is the acknowledgment that the fight between God and the devil for humanity is the fight for the mind. It's who we will choose to believe and follow. Will we follow what God through the Bible tells us, or will we follow man-made ideas that conflict with it. That's the choice before us. A mixing of the ideas practically guarantees we will not follow God as we will be far more willing to follow of a mixture of ideas rather than following God with all our hearts and minds, as the Bible tells us we must do if we want to be saved.