are we going home? POPE in USA: Different Views

[GayatfootofCross]

http://atoday.org/adventists-respond-to-popes-visit-to-the-united-states.html

 

Adventists Respond to Pope’s Visit to the United States

 

September 24, 2015:    The two Adventist members of the United States Congress listened during the unprecedented address by Pope Francis, leader of the Roman Catholic Church, today, as did the Adventist doctor who is running for President. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee from Houston (Texas) and Representative Raul Ruiz from the Coachella Valley in California sat with their colleagues in the Democratic Party while Dr. Ben Carson sat in the gallery as the guest of Representative Mark Sanford from Charleston (South Carolina), not an Adventist, but an ally in the Republican Party where Carson is seeking the presidential nomination.

Yesterday when thousands of religious leaders from almost all faiths were at the White House as President Barack Obama greeted the pope, there was no representative of the Adventist faith so far as Adventist Today could determine. The denomination’s General Conference would not comment and the official records of attendance will not be made public for at least ten days. Leaders of the Jewish faith were also absent because yesterday happened to be Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the most sacred day of the year in the Jewish calendar.

A commentary on the events this week was published by the Adventist Review on line yesterday by Pastor Marcos Blanco, editorial director of the Adventist publishing house in Buenos Aires, Argentina, where the pope was archbishop before he became pope. “A charismatic leader who has fascinated Christians and nonbelievers alike,” Blanco wrote, “I had a hunch that Pope Francis would write history before long. … In many ways [he] is also shaking longtime and hard-to-remove traditions and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.”

“Catholicism does have a record of persecution [and] there have been serious abuses of religious freedom when the popular church entered alliances with the state.” Referencing Revelation 13-14, Blanco stated, “We believe that mainstream Christian denominations, including Catholicism, will make an alliance with the state once again, resulting in the suppression of religious freedom” specifically related to the Sabbath.

Blanco notes that “since Francis took office as pope, Catholics in alliance with labor unions … succeeded in getting lawmakers to pass blue laws [restricting business operations on Sundays] in more than 80 Argentinean cities.” But, “Are we bearing witness to the fulfillment of prophecy? This is a different issue, and we should not let the heat of current events drive us into a prophetic effervescence.”

Another Adventist Review commentary, published on Monday (September 21), criticized “cafeteria Catholics.” Jean Boonstra, associate speaker for the denomination’s Voice of Prophecy radio ministry, wrote, “How different this approach to faith is from what the Bible describes. There is no description of a cafeteria of beliefs in the Scriptures.” This is in contrast to Lisa Miller, a columnist for New York magazine, a day earlier, who observed that to Francis, Christian compassion “is everything, and extends to everybody.” He’s remaking a rigid institution once defined “by its hostility to change” into “a far more fluid, forgiving, understanding and ultimately modern church.”

A survey conducted earlier in September by Quinnipiac University found that 66 percent of Americans give Pope Francis a “favorable” or “very favorable” rating, including 87 percent of U.S. Catholics. A total of 70 percent of Catholics think the church is moving in the right direction now. A 2000 poll conducted for Catholics for Free Choice, found that only 29 percent of U.S. Catholics thought that it was proper for their bishops to use the political arena to advance the church’s moral teachings about abortion, etc.

There has been an outpouring of what claims to be prophetic interpretation from a wide range of independent ministries and self-appointed evangelists on the Internet in the time leading up to the pope’s visit. “Pope Francis about to Fulfill Daniel’s Most Horrible Prophecy!!!” is the title on a YouTube sermon by Joshua Wiley, about whom Adventist Today could find nothing on record. (The name may be an alias.) “This video is about the True nature of Pope Francis’s visit and the end result,” the blurb stated, indicating that it includes information about U.S. President Obama, 666, forerunner777, secret societies, new age agenda, spiritualism … last days … new world order, catholic church.”

Another series of YouTube videos feature Christopher Hudson speaking in a church about “The New Age Agenda.” He was the focus of an article in the Adventist Review last week by news editor Andrew McChesney on Hudson’s documentary on Revelation 13 entitled Leopard Vision which had been viewed more than 156,000 times as compared to 71 times for Wiley’s video.

“A hip, fast-paced film gone viral,” McChesney wrote, it has “even won accolades from some unlike quarters in pop culture.” The video “traces the history of the Catholic church while underscoring what Hudson sees as the central theme of the last book of the Bible.” He quotes Hudson, “It is my earnest desire that this film will help millions to realize that the events that are now taking place on planet Earth are sure indicators that the word of God is true and that Jesus Christ is coming back to this world very soon.”

Hudson is 38, raised in an Adventist home in the suburbs of New York City. As a young adult he got a job helping to produce music videos and then wrote the script for Turn It Up, a movie that was produced by MadGuy Films and distributed by New Line Cinema. He is a speaker on Three Angels Broadcasting cable channel and raised the $20,000 for Leopard Vision through a crowd-funding Web site. The result is a 76-minute film that Hyperfresh magazine called “nothing short of exceptional” in a five-star review.

“Pope in Seventh Day Adventist Churches,” says another YouTube video produced by MasonIlluminatiNWO, another individual or organization for which Adventist Today could find no identification information. “Local SDA Church Accepts Pope’s Call for Ecumenism” is yet another YouTube video, produced by Prophecy Again TV and with more than 122,000 views.

Another YouTube preacher who has often spoken about the visit of Pope Francis to the U.S. is Andrew Henriques, the leader of an Adventist splinter group that organized the Latter Rain Camp Meeting earlier this summer. Saved to Serve operates out of a former martial arts studio at 475 West Silver Star Road, Ocoee, Florida, and was incorporated as a nonprofit in the State of Florida in April 2007.

Henriques spoke on Sabbath (September 19) about his concept that the Pope will work deceptive miracles. Nearly 5,500 views of the video of this sermon have already occurred, according to the count on YouTube. He stated that the prophecy about prohibiting people from buying and selling is already beginning to be fulfilled through U.S. embargo on certain nations and pointed out that it has loosened the embargo on Cuba about the time that the pope head to Cuba for a visit.

Pastor Doug Batchelor, a minister in the Adventist denomination’s Northern California Conference, has done sermons on the pope and prophecy in recent weeks on his Amazing Facts television ministry, but the number of views on YouTube have been small compared to a similar sermon in early 2014 that has had more than 6,000 views. The independent ministries have had far more views on this topic, perhaps because they are more sensational.

In fact the topic and the Adventist connection with the topic has been picked up by some individuals that have no background with the Adventist movement. The self-styled Pastor Rosemary who writes The Astrology Angel blog and published a book entitled The Goodly Christian Witch, is circulating a video presentation entitled, “The New Pope and Ellen G. White End Times Prophecy.” She seems to be respectful and affirmative toward White, who is one of the cofounders of the Adventist denomination.

“Do Adventists Have a Beef With Pope Francis?” This was the title line of a long feature published by the Adventist Review last Friday (September 18). Written by Jared Thurmon who is part of the magazine’s staff, it discussed the pope’s concern with environmental issues and described the Adventist perspective on the topic. It includes an extensive bibliography and clearly documented that the Adventist position on this particular subject is not much different from that of the pope.

Many of the comments posted by readers were negative. Pastor Stephen Bohr from the Fresno (California) Adventist Church, who has been an outspoken advocate of headship theology against the ordination of women, wrote two comments reiterating his opinion that the pope’s concern about climate change is “a smoke screen so the two beasts can unite and force Sunday laws.” For many of the comments it was unclear if the reaction to the topic was driven more by prophetic interpretation or politics.

Perhaps this is one of those subjects that is so laden with emotional connections that it is difficult for people to listen, to read carefully and to understand what other’s may be saying or the simple facts involved. The Adventist Today staff discovered last week that an opinion piece clearly labeled “A Proposal …” was misunderstood by many people that read it to mean that AT was announcing a news item. In fact, Pastor Ted Wilson, the president of the denomination’s General Conference, did not issue a letter to the pope, and AT never intended for anyone to get that idea. The article was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek opinion piece.

......................................................................................................................

 

Viewpoint: Antichrist Fever - The Pope in the US

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2015/09/24/viewpoint-antichrist-fever-pope-us

24 September 2015 | André Reis

Adventists all over the world are watching with interest the events unfolding this week in Washington D.C. as Pope Francis is visiting the United States and speaking to Congress. In preparation for this event, independent ministries have mailed out thousands of unsolicited Great Controversy paperbacks to mailboxes in Philadelphia. The web and social media have exploded with links to Revelation seminars, videos and articles.

For conservative Adventists, the implications of the auspicious visit are unequivocal: This is a clear fulfillment of the prophecy Revelation 13. The beast of the earth (America) is finally paying homage to the beast of the sea (Papacy).

Or is it?

Our official reading of Revelation 13 pits the Adventist remnant against monstrous beasts of the end time. The beast that rises from the sea is Catholicism led by the Pope and the beast from the earth is the modern day America. As they unite to persecute the little flock of the faithful in the end time, they impose the mark of the beast (Sunday Law) and trigger the second coming of Christ.

Ellen White practically canonized these interpretations by Uriah Smith and John Andrews when she admittedly copied and pasted them in The Great Controversy as emblematic of the best Adventist thought at the time.

But the traditional Adventist interpretation of Revelation 13 as applied to modern day Papacy and America faces many challenges. I will briefly focus on two.

The first is the fact that a prophecy portending events 2,000 years in the future would be utterly irrelevant to the seven churches for which Revelation was originally intended. The book was supposed to be read out loud in the churches in the first century, probably enacted, but most importantly, understood.

Thus the likelihood that John intended to refer specifically to a nation in a then unknown part of the world (America) in the 21st century and modern day Papacy in Revelation 13 virtually ignoring 2000 years of church history is next to nil. Prophecy may be predictive, but it must be grounded in relevance to its original audience.

A second reason why Revelation 13 probably does not predict entities and powers in the distant future specifically is that, in general, the symbolic prophecies of the book of Revelation were not really meant to be decoded in terms of events, entities or future world powers. The language of the book is just too ambiguous and highly symbolic for narrowing down fulfillments. In case a specific entity seems to be referred to, then a source must be found in the immediate context of the original readers, such as Jezebel (Rev 2:20) an actual person in the church of Thyatira.

Take for example, the number of the beast in Rev 13:18. An intriguing interpretation posits that the beast from the sea (13:1-10) symbolized the Roman emperor vying for veneration as Dominus et Deus (possibly referring to Nero) and the beast from the earth (13:11-18) symbolized the local arm of the Roman government which enforced such adoration by building images and temples dedicated to the Emperor. Surprisingly, according to Suetonius, Nero's name was veiled in at least one contemporary riddle that went like this:

Count the numerical values of the letters of Nero's name,
And in "murdered his own mother," You will find their sum is the same.

Both values add up to 1,005 in Greek gematria. This is indeed a striking parallel with the riddle of 666 as "number of the beast" (Rev 13:6). This important evidence may be one more nail in the coffin of the false Vicarius Filii Dei interpretation which lingers stubbornly in the global Adventist South. But this is just one possibility. The fact is that the definitive culprit, guilty of such bestial actions and disguised in a sea of symbolism, remains at large.

This is one of the many possible sources for imagery in the book of Revelation. The high symbolism in the book is precisely the pitfall of historicism as Adventists practice it. The cryptic language leaves the interpretative field wide open to those historicists who would like to place their own favorite modern-day protagonist as the ultimate fulfillment of any given prophecy. Case in point, the beast carrying a harlot in chapter 17 has given rise to the wildest applications and a morass of theories, most of them involving a sequence of popes as the beast’s heads.

As scholars of Revelation have been pointing out for the last few decades, the book seems to be more preoccupied with the "psychology" of Christianity than its dogmas. In other words, by concocting an expressive visual, auditory masterpiece, Revelation's author wants to impact readers to stand up to the many beastly powers menacing their allegiance to Christ from the dawn of the Christian era to the end of time. Even Ellen White hinted at this when she suggests that the messages to the seven churches have elements that are applicable to all churches in all ages.

So the principles of Revelation 13 may be applicable to the U.S. and to the Papacy but such applications are just not meant to be “absolute.” Thus the "idealist" school of prophetic interpretation provides a much more sensible reading of Revelation. Idealist readings are more concerned about the overall principles of the text rather than specific interpretations.

As attractive as it seems to be able to identify characters that may confirm our own theological biases, our first task as Bible students is to respect the intention of the author. If you can't be sure, as is often the case in the most enigmatic passages of Revelation, the safest way forward is to be less dogmatic. Instead, we should look for the general principles of the kingdom of God portrayed in the passage.

We should be concerned that in attempting to enforce our only interpretation of Revelation 13 to the Papacy and America, we have effectively neutered the text. It can no longer speak dynamically today, but must apply either to a medieval religious power or a future triumvirate of devilish politico-religious powers. Surely having the Pope as a collective target to shoot at has strengthened our sense of “community” and “prophetic movement". But was that really the intention of John the Revelator?

The Papacy has also been called the fulfillment of all “antichrist” prophecies in the New Testament. But that view also has its own problems. The obvious meaning of antichrist is to be “against Christ". Is the Pope really “against Christ”? We may take issue with the Pope’s interpretations of many doctrines but this does not mean he is against Christ.

The Pope’s Christology may be faulty, but so is that of many Adventist preachers who advocate a Christ with sinful human nature for example; or a Christ whose sacrifice on the cross was insufficient for salvation. Are they not preaching a diminished Christ? Are they “anti” the Christ of Scripture? How do we decide what qualifies one to be antichrist? Does not fully understanding who Christ is and what he did qualify one to be an antichrist? Or is an antichrist someone who lives in continuous rebellion against the principles of the kingdom of Christ? In that case, I fail to see how the Pope could be described as THE antichrist.

Okay, I get the adrenaline rush such readings of the end times provides. I was born and raised in that milieu. I was in the last generation theology camp for a long time; in those quarters, one needs the theological high this approach to prophecy provides. But we must temper our desire for the dawn of end time with careful application of the prophetic message as the author intended it, especially when considering his original readers.

I remember vividly that when G. W. Bush took office, I preached a sermon in which I showed a photo of him greeting Pope John Paul II. I spoke in ominous terms alerting the congregation that this was a clear fulfillment of prophecy.

But nothing came of it.

And I suspect that nothing prophetically significant will come out of the Pope’s visit to the US this week.

 

André Reis has degrees in theology and music and is currently finishing a Ph.D. in New Testament at Avondale College. His thesis is on the book of Revelation.

______________________________

 

GOP n the Pope compiliation  video link

ABC w/ David Muir n Pope video link

http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story3145-adventists-gear-up-for-popes-u.s.-visit  article

 

 

 

[Robert]

The Pope’s Christology may be faulty, but so is that of many Adventist preachers who advocate a Christ with sinful human nature for example; 

The problem with the Pope are his numerous, especially his claims as the Vicar of Christ and infallibility.  The first is blasphemous and the second leads naturally to tyranny. 

As to the gospel, there's only one. Many of  the independent ministries stress that Christ had a sinful nature so that we could mimic Him and enter into salvation.  This is subtle legalism, which is "another gospel". 

First of all Christ didn't have a sinful nature.  Our fallen humanity has a sinful nature.  Christ as God assumed our humanity at the fall indwelt by our nature.  That nature was never His.  He assumed humanity, with all its liabilities, but it was never His nature.  That's why Ellen White states that Christ took upon His sinless nature (as God), OUR sinful nature.

Christ didn't come to redeem holy people like Adam before fall.  Christ came to redeem sinners who were born of Adam after the fall.  To legally redeem the fallen race Christ, as God, had to assume us, i.e., or corporate, fallen life. If not then God's law has not been legally fulfilled. That's because God demands three things:

1]  Perfect obedience based on agape love.

2] Justice (the curse of the law) for failure of # 1.

3] A sinless humanity free from indwelling sin and mortality.

All these were accomplished in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.  Any gospel outside this is what Paul calls "another gospel".  Teaching any other gospel other than the truth as it is "in Christ" deserves eternal damnation. Who said this?  Paul:

"As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Gal 1:9

Edited September 25, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

The problem with the Pope are his numerous, especially his claims as the Vicar of Christ and infallibility.

Correction:

I meant to say, "The problem with the Pope are numerous, especially his claims as the Vicar of Christ and infallibility."

To legally redeem the fallen race Christ, as God, had to assume us, i.e., or corporate, fallen life.

Correction:

I meant to say, "To legally redeem the fallen race Christ, as God, had to assume us, i.e., our corporate, fallen life. "

Edited September 25, 2015 by Robert

[GayatfootofCross]

 

It is always a good time to Praise God!

She must be REALLY GOOOOOD!

Edited September 25, 2015 by GayatfootofCross

[Robert]

All these were accomplished in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ.  Any gospel outside this is what Paul calls "another gospel".  Teaching any other gospel other than the truth as it is "in Christ" deserves eternal damnation. Who said this?  Paul:

"As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Gal 1:9

I take it that no one buys into what Paul stated in Gal 1:9 or everyone agrees with it?

I am in amazement how SDA, on this forum, are so easily convinced that "His Holiness" doesn't mean what it states.   

Edited September 26, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Full Question

According to the Bible, only God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit merit the designation "holy." Yet on innumerable occasions Catholics refer to the pope as the "Holy Father." Kindly provide a rational explanation for this blasphemy.

Answer

Only God is holy by his very essence; however, by a person, place, or thing’s association with God, it too can be called holy. To be called holy is to express the idea of consecration, that someone or something belongs to God. That is why the Bible can call many persons, places, and things holy.

In Genesis 28:16, the place God appears is "holy." In Exodus 19:6, God tells the Israelites through Moses, "and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." God’s dwelling place in the Tabernacle is "holy" (Ex 28:43), as is the city of Jerusalem (Is 48:2). Even a goat, the victim of sacrifice to God, is called "holy" in Leviticus 10:17.

After Christ’s death and resurrection the Christians called themselves and each other "holy ones" or "saints," called by God to be his (Rom 1:7). In 1 Peter 1:16 we read, "it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy.’"

Since we are his holy people, and his people are the Church, it is fitting that the head of his holy people be called Holy Father—not because of his own merit, but because Christ died for him and for the Church that he leads on earth. [http://www.catholic.com/]

 

 

 I fully disagree with the conclusion.  It is not fitting to call a sinner, Holy Father.  Yes, we are called to be Holy, but that does not mean we are actually holy.  We are always holy "in Christ", but that glorified, holy humanity is in heaven "in Christ" (see Eph 2:6/Col 1:13) and doesn't apply to us as children of fallen Adam.

I have never heard laity call another Catholic, holy.  They always use if for the Pope of Rome.  So, if what they state is true, they should address all members as Holy.  

What does Paul say?

 Rom 3:10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one"

What does Christ say?

Matt 19:17 "There is none good but one, that is, God" 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

What does EGW say?

Many see much to admire in the life of Christ. But true love for him can never dwell in the heart of the self-righteous. Not to see our own deformity is not to see the beauty of Christ’s character. When we are fully awake to our own sinfulness, we shall appreciate Christ. The more humble are our views of ourselves, the more clearly we shall see the spotless character of Jesus. He who says, “I am holy, I am sinless,” is self-deceived. Some have said this, and some even dare to say, “I am Christ.” To entertain such a thought is blasphemy. Not to see the marked contrast between Christ and ourselves is not to know ourselves. He who does not abhor himself can not understand the meaning of redemption

[Robert]

For the Roman Catholic, the believer is made righteous by cooperating with God's grace. For the Protestant, the believer is declared righteous when he comes to faith, based on the righteousness of Christ credited (imputed) to him.  [ http://www.theopedia.com/infused-righteousness ]

So Roman Catholicism believes that in order to be actually declared righteous you must cooperate with God's grace in order to ultimately stand before God's law without spot.

This, ladies and Gentlemen, is why I am a protestant. Roman Catholicism is making sanctification (what they call "infused grace") meritorious.  They are making sanctification the answer to justification.  

Traditional, historic SDA do the same.  No wonder many SDA will join with Roman in the end.  

Edited September 26, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

So Roman Catholicism believes that in order to be actually declared righteous you must cooperate with God's grace in order to ultimately stand before God's law without spot.

This, ladies and Gentlemen, is why I am a protestant. Roman Catholicism is making sanctification (what they call "infused grace") meritorious.  They are making sanctification the answer to justification.  

Traditional, historic SDA do the same.  No wonder many SDA will join with Roman in the end.  

This is why we so desperately need to understand the gospel. What Christ did, in our corporate humanity (the one we all share in), answers the law now and in the judgement. 

Edited September 26, 2015 by Robert