• Conspiracy chasing.
• Sensation mongering.
• Paranoia (prophetic and otherwise).

The proclivity of so many Adventists (and other Christians too, to be fair), to seek and aggressively bruit the latest fear-based meme is both fascinating and appalling. 

Many TV talking heads these days routinely engage in fearmongering and hatemongering in pursuit of ratings gold. Whipping unthinking masses into a state of quivering hysteria is par for their course. But why should our evangelism take its cue from such manipulative and fear-based tactics?

Immediately after the fall, God went looking for Adam. "Where are you?"

"I hid," said Adam, "because I was afraid."

Fear is a devil-generated result of sin. But God's motivators are the polar opposite: "Perfect love casts out fear."

Yes, it's far past time for us to grow up and abandon fear, guilt, shame, and all other manipulative motivators in our evangelism.

We can't ever get God's work done by using the devil's tools. 

—Ken McFarland

+“Let the restraints now imposed by secular government be removed and Rome will reinstated in her former power, and there would be speedily be a revival of her tyranny and persecution.” 

+”The people need to be aroused to resist the advances of this most dangerous foe to civil and religious liberty…Through this mammoth system of deception the prince of evil achieves is purpose of bring dishonor to God and wretchedness to man…She is piling up her lofty and massive structures (churches) in the secret recesses of which her former persecutions will be repeated.”

+The church claims “infallibility”

+Every “cardinal, archbishop, and bishop in the Catholic Church takes an oath of allegiance to the Pope”

+The church is a “religion of externals”

+The church leads its members to “feel at liberty to sin”

+The church teaches “degrading confession”

+The church consist of “senseless traditions, false interpretations, and rigorous exactions”

+”The worship of images and relics, the invocation of saints, and the exaltation of the pope are devices of Satan.”

+The Roman church unites “forms of paganism and Christianity”

+It is a “mammoth system of deception”

+“Every principle of the papacy that existed in the past ages exists today. The doctrines devised in the darkest ages are still held. Let none deceive themselves.”

+“Her spirit is no less cruel and despotic now then when she crushed our human liberty and slew the saints of the Most High.”

+“A prayerful study of the Bible would show Protestants the real character of the papacy and would cause them to abhor and shun it.

"Sierramanna" raises an interesting point. From the quotes provided, it is obvious that Ellen White took a very dim view of the Roman Catholic Church. This was the common view of the vast majority of her Protestant contemporaries and so, living when she did, in the environment in which she lived and reading what she read, it would have been very odd if she had not made the statements she did about the Catholic Church. Many of them read as if they were directly lifted out of Fox's Book of Martyrs.

White's writings provide an excellent illustration where a religious author who made a great impact on the devotional life of a number of individuals and even was instrumental in founding a Protestant Church could write some very unfortunate things. Martin Luther comes to mind in his writings about Jews. Ellen White's writings about Catholic Christians provide another excellent illustration.

Contemporary Adventists can honor her real contributions best by understanding how and why she said the things she did and quietly laying to rest by benign neglect her regrettable statements about the Catholic faith. These statements might be buried along side her early views on the Shut Door, the nature of the remnant church, the cosmic significance of 1844, and amalgamation of man and beast.
.

This was a fundraising letter to people who are already on AF's mailing list, presumably have given to AF in the past, and presumably are mostly Adventists. 

Ervin pulls a switcheroo and uses the fundraising letter to indict "mass public evangelism," of which it is obviously not an example or a part.  It isn't really fair to take an example of Doug Batchelor's fundraising among Adventists and use it to criticize Doug Batchelor's preaching and teaching directed at non-Adventists.   

What Ervin is getting at is that he doesn't approve of the Adventist church's traditional prophetic interpretation and eschatology.  What he is really saying is "when will the SDA church grow up and drop its traditional suspicion of Rome, and the historical-school interpretation of prophecy, which engenders that suspicion?" 

Yawn.  What else is new?  Ervin doesn't approve of the church's stand on origins, or on the substitutionary atonement, or on the inspiration and authority of Scripture, or of much else that the church corporately holds.  Naturally, he doesn't want to see Amazing Facts go out and convince others of things he doesn't believe. 

UPDATE:  As I was writing my post, Ervin was writing a follow up recommending benign neglect of Ellen White's statements about Rome.  Thus, there was no need for me to clarify his position; he was in the process of clarifying it himself. 

I would point out, however, that Ervin's suggestion of neglecting EGW on this topic would not fix the problem unless we also throw out the historical school of prophetic interpretation, which identifies Rome as the beast power that persecutes the church.

On this issue, as on origins, the Bible is clear enough, but a liberal hermeneutic and approach to Scripture could allow us to ignore or "reinterpret" the Bible  . . .  were it not for the fact that EGW's writings and status as a prophetess provide an extra hurdle for liberals to clear, in their endless and pointless crusade to convert the SDA church into just another liberal church.

"I am not aware of any time in the gospels where Jesus is recorded as attacking the leader of some other religious tradition."

Neither Adventists in particular nor Christians in general have a monopoly on fearmongering.  Economic collapse, climate change, and health care are the paranoias d'jour that are euphemized as courageous confrontation with the all but certain apocalyptic consequences of capitalism.  We are told by the cognoscenti that we and our children (it's always about the children) can escape the miasmic, wretched dystopia bequeathed to us by the exploitative policies and values of past generations, only by turning our lives and incomes over to wise, benevolent politicians and bureaucrats.  

"Whipping unthinking masses into a state of quivering hysteria" is far more characteristic of non-Christians than of Christians.  Nevertheless, Erv's point is extremely valid and important.  It is deeply offensive to see Papal paranoia created and fed by ministers of the Gospel in order to induce people to part with their money.  Jesus did not have a whole lot to say about the secular powers of the day that perpetuated social, ethnic, and economic injustice.  But He was pointedly harsh toward the RELIGIOUS authorities that used God to build and maintain their own power and control over the way people perceived themselves and God.  

Sorry Ken, I think fear, guilt, and shame are all legitimate and necessary feelings. Fear was frequently a part of Christ's message.  But Christ used fear to turn hearts and minds toward God, not to turn over their money to Him.  He told the rich young ruler to go, sell all that he had, and give to the poor. He didn't say, "Give it to me to advance my mission, or else the dirty, rotten pharisees will take over the world.  Evangelists need money - no question.  But the manipulative tactics that Erv documents are an embarrassment to Christians, and bring shame upon evangelists.

The papal encyclical in question, "Caritas in veritate," can be found here:  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html#_edn137.  It is a long, rambling discourse on the subject of Catholic social policy (which is sort of a middle way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism, best described as, if not quite "socialism with a human face," then perhaps socialism with a human head wearing a mitre.)  Why does the Pope feel obligated to bloviate on matters of economics and social policy?  According to Pius XI, in a 1931 Encyclical entitled "Quadragesimo anno":

"there resides in Us the right and duty to pronounce with supreme authority upon social and economic matters.  . . .   the deposit of truth that God committed to Us and the grave duty of disseminating and interpreting the whole moral law, and of urging it in season and out of season, bring under and subject to Our supreme jurisdiction not only social order but economic activities themselves.

But back to caritatis in veritate.  Of most concern is paragraph 67, in which Benedict claims that there is a strong need for reform of international institutions "so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth."   (After all, what's a beast without real teeth.)  "there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago.  . . . Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties." 

And who is to run this world political authority?  A hint is provided by the statement: "the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, . . ."  The social order must conform to the moral order, and we know who thinks it is to run the moral order.  As to who has effective, projectable power to enforce this new world order, there is only one answer to that question: the nation that has eleven active aircraft carriers (when no other nation has more than 2). 

 It turns out not to be such a stretch to see prophetic signicance in this latest papal utterance.

It is interesting to see the effect of tradition on people. In the other Blog here "turn out the lights" David Read writes: "for Europe, which is effectively "post-Christian" yet here he see the resurgence of the Roman Catholic church. Reality seems to have little to do with what the traditionalists actually believes, even when they themselves realize the reality...the traditional views survive.

The Pope's encylical is just one player in the UN Global Contract, not even a particular important player either.

--

The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations will hold their 15th conference on climate change through December 7-18th. At the conference, globalists like Obama will sign the ‘Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty’ that will replace the Kyoto treaty that is set to expire in 2012.

 Lord Christopher Monckton, the man who warned many this week of the treaty appeared on the Glenn Beck radio program, he makes it clear that the treaty will create a World Government Dictatorship that will have complete authority over all nations by intervening in the economies and environment of any individual country in the world without consent. The treaty will also allow the distribution of wealth from developed countries like the U.S. to Third World Countries like Africa, in other words; taxpayer-funded socialist welfare! The reason why many believe Obama will sign this global treaty is because Obama has supported a global tax legislation would have given $845 billion of foreign aid to satisfy the United Nations’ goal of reducing poverty by 2015.

Here’s what it says about the distribution of wealth in the Copenhagen Treaty Draft:

17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]

(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;

(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/climate-treaty-will-create-world-government-...

--

Normally I would not trust too much from Alex Jones but there is a good deal of accuracy here. And he has the links to the interview on Glenn Becks show. Remember all those years that we were behind in our payments to the UN...well Obama has paid us up in full and we are in good standing with the UN again.  It may not always be a good idea to look at the news and try to fit it with projected end time events. Still this is the most dramatic and logical fit I have ever seen. There is really no reason to think the end time events will be what was expected 100 or 500 years ago. Maybe we will look back at this in 100 years and laugh, Who knows

Ron is dead-on here.  The dominant political and religious authorities in the world today are those which join together in repudiating the culture of western civilization in its Judeo-Christian iteration: Muslim extremists, Western Leftist intellectuals, and their political patrons.  They despise the Catholic Church just as much as the Adventist Church or other Protestants who resist being co-opted by the secular political/moral agenda.  Like Babylon, they openly revile the beliefs and values of those whose faith is founded on Scripture.  Western elites proudly boast of imminent world government, a John Lennon world of peace - without heaven, hell, or the God of Scripture - only the moral will of Rationalism and philosophical materialism worshipping at the temples of Mother Gaia.  

During most of Ellen White's life, the federal government was relatively weak, as the founders intended it to be.  There was no such force as militant secularism dominating the political and educational establishments in America.  She looked, with prophetic eyes at the world as it was, and she warned of things that were real and plausible at the time.  The world has changed, and SDA eschatology regarding the Papacy is not plausible to thinking people today.  That does not mean that it may not become plausible again.  But right now the SDA Church needs to take a fresh look at the world as it is with prophetic vision, and rediscover a prophetic message for the anti-Christian world as it is, rather than the Catholic Beast dominated, anti-Adventist world that they wish it to be.

The Catholic Church is a bit player on the world stage, and the Adventist Church isn't even a gaffer.  We need to wake up and smell the Postum.  The end times are surely upon us. The SDA Church, infatuated with its parochial eschatology, has myopically been focused on Rome.  It has scrutinized the entrails of Antonin Scalia's Supreme Court opinions for threats to the Wall of Separation, oblivious to the tidal wave just over the horizon.

Biblically, Babylon is symbolic of earthly powers that create false religions, false gods, and require people to worship and sacrifice at the altars of those gods.  My beef with progressives is that they have freed themselves from the authoritarianism of Ellen White and the Church, only to be seduced by the authoritarianism of scientism, rationalism, and political correctness.  They scoff at Sunday law paranoia, without seeing how courts and regulators are taking a chain saw to every other Constitutional freedom, rendering freedom of religion a chimera that can be trumped by manufactured rights or clear and present dangers as perceived by the high priests of political virtue.

The fact that the SDA Church is still tilting at the windmills of Rome does not excuse thoughtful, concerned Adventists from taking seriously the apocalyptic messages of Scripture in the context of current events.  

Ron and Nathan, I agree with most of what you guys are saying.  I just disagree that what is happening today is inconsistent with traditional Adventist eschatology eventually coming good. 

Ron, I agree that Europe is post-Christian, but you must surely understand that I, as a traditional SDA, see no inconsistency between the lack of Christianity and the presence of Rome as a power.  There wasn't much Christianity in the middle ages in Europe, either, but Rome held sway, her power mostly unchallenged.  Rome is a false system of religion, a thoroughly anti-Christian power; for many long centuries she persecuted the church with an insatiable appetite for the blood of its saints.

It is also true that the major world security threat today is Islam, and that does not seem to fit at all with SDA eschatology.  But neither did a bi-polar world of capitalism vs. communism, and that seemed to be an unshakable reality just a little over two decades ago.  Then world communism, as a threatening geo-political force, was gone--poof!--almost overnight.  The same thing could happen to Islam.  In reality, Islam is very weak and extremely backward; its power comes solely from the fact that it is culturally self-confident, and the Western elites are self-loathing.  Islam is a problem for exactly as long as the West allows it to be, and not one week longer.   

In fact, the problem of Islamic craziness is a powerful argument for a world religion, bland and content-less enough to include almost everyone.  This occurred to me in the week following 9/11, particularly the service at the National Cathedral in Washington, which included one from each column: a priest, an imam, a pastor, etc.  As I watched that, I thought, "this is exactly the kind of bland, everyone-included religion that will eventually be enforced on pain of death!"  

Although efforts at world government today have economic and/or environmental rationales, it is not inconceivable, I would say not improbable, that future efforts at world government will eventually be thought to depend upon a world religion, just as Benedict hinted at in the encyclical he just issued.  Efforts at an atheistic totalitarian system with world appeal, while credible and fervently promoted in many places, have failed.  The genius of both Catholicism and Islam (and they are mirror images of each other, where it counts) is that their totalitarian claims are buttressed by the supernatural, the threat of eternal damnation, the promise of eternal reward. 

Nathan, you're right that Adventists have often focused their eschatological fears on the wrong things.  For example, we've been ridiculously paranoid about the "religious right" and failed to see the threat to liberty posed by the left. (You and I could both probably write the lawsuits the church will face once same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land.)  You are also, of course, completely correct that currently the Roman Catholic Church has little power or political influence.  But, as you know, this is totally in keeping with traditional Adventist eschatology.  A couple of centuries ago, Rome received a deadly wound, which has not healed.  Not yet.  But my Bible tells me it will be healed.  I am willing to give traditional SDA eschatology more time, because what I'm seeing (in my still reasonably young life) is consistent with it.

Read said.....

"Nathan, you're right that Adventists have often focused their eschatological fears on the wrong things.  For example, we've been ridiculously paranoid about the "religious right" and failed to see the threat to liberty posed by the left."

 Actually, David, I think most Christians today including SDA's side with Hanity, Beck, etc.....and conservative politics. But your point is valid in this context.

 No doubt the true antichrist, conservative America, is busy exposing the false antichrist of liberal politics and liberal religion in America.

We have more to fear from Beck and his ilk than Obama and his followers. But we must also note, that in the end, they come to some sort of unity that "all" can embrace and support.

The "bickering" will eventually cease for a concensus and agreeable solution.

And for those who think Catholicism has little to do with this reality, they have their head in the sand. Never was it more obvious that the Papacy is gaining power and influence in the world today.

The pope knows what he is about. "Keys of this Blood" by Martin, a Catholic Jesuit, shows the intent with an open confession of that intent. In some ways, Rome is open and bold in its declarations.

What SDA's fail to see is the part apostate Adventism plays in this overall scheme of things as we near the end.

The worst enemies of truth are always those who at one time professed loyalty to God and His kingdom. And who fits this "label" more than SDA's?

The Jews would never have preceived themselves as the ultimate "antichrist" when the Messiah would come. But they were.

And the early church, except for Paul, would never have conceived themselves and their children evolving into the predicted antichrist of prophecy. John no doubt saw this reality as well.

And "Apostate Protestantism" was not in Luther's thinging and agenda in his day.

How slow we are to preceive the working of Satan in corrupting the true instrumentality of faith and then useing it in the most dynamic way to accomplish his goals.

"Unconditional election" has always been his doctrine to destroy and over throw God's church. It is no different today. And it is the scenario the church leaders use to hold the people in subjection while they abandon the bible and attack God's truth.

What will they actually "do" about evolution in our schools? Nothing. In many ways, they have rendered themselves impotent because of their failures to act in  the past.

Politics and money, power and worldly influence, reign over truth and righteousness. At this point, it is doubtful that the corporate structure can actually "heal" and be instrumental in the end to do God's will.

None the less, like the Jews, the SDA church has been used of God to prepare honest people to see and know what is coming and as it develops, true believers will "exert their liberty in Christ" and defend the true faith without compromise and intimidation of apostates in the world, or the church.

Probably not too far in the future. This is why more and more church leaders are becoming desperate to hold the political system together at all cost. And they will continue to compromise truth on every level to maintain this influence and power.

Bill Sorensen

David, I think it is very healthy to affirm that God has led our Church to present truth for the times in which it has lived.  And past truth may well apply to future realities.  But our eschatology should speak to a reality that gives it the ring of truth, without having to grasp at straws, anecdotal evidence, and isolated vignettes to keep alive the specter of a dragon that looks very much like a chameleon.  Adventist eschatology should not operate on the principle that, since a broken clock is right twice a day, there's no need to get it fixed.

As to your observation that "efforts at an atheistic totalitarian system...have failed", I agree.  But a longer range view reveals that pagan totalitarian systems have been highly successful, and have been the norm for most of  history.  Hence, the neo-collectivists and statists of today solemnly, but cynically, invoke the co-equal authority of Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, co-opting them for leadership roles in the pagan religions of social justice, sexual equality, economic equality, and climate change.  They see farther than atheistic totalitarians of the past because they stand on their shoulders. They recognize that the opiate of religion is not necessarily a problem if they can control the supply. Religion, they know, will grow out of what people believe in.  So all they need to do is control what people believe in.  The Muslims are masters of this, and hence are deeply admired by Western elitists.  As G.K. Chesterton suggested, when people stop believing in God, what they believe in will become their gods.

Bill, of course there are Catholic thought leaders who lust for the halcyon days of Inquisition and world domination.  But this has not been the trajectory of the Catholic Church for quite some time.  Thousands of priests and nuns were martyred for advancing the cause of Christ under the totalitarian regimes of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, and others.  Have SDAs stood up for the cause as well in similar environments?  Recent popes have stood firmly and courageously against totalitarianism and for freedom of religion.  I think we need to look at the big picture, rather than seizing on bulletins from the fringes to validate a parochial world view incubated in 19th Century realities. 

An outsider reading educatetruth might conclude that evolutionary science is on the verge of expulsion from Adventist education.  If that same reader looked only at the AToday website, he might conclude that Creation science will soon be banned from science classrooms (though I hope and think we exhibit greater diversity than that).  Neither conclusion would be accurate.  We must keep our hearts, ears, and eyes open to reality so that God's Spirit can continue to guide us into present truth that may not look exactly the same as it did 100 years ago. 

"Bill, of course there are Catholic thought leaders who lust for the halcyon days of Inquisition and world domination.  But this has not been the trajectory of the Catholic Church for quite some time." 

Very good points.  As a first generation SDA, biblical truth is what blew my mind back in the late 1970's, not all of the pseudo evangelical hype that many SDA pastors are using in the 00's. I was baptized in 1979, and PJPII become Pope soon afterwards.  Even skeptics would have to admit that the Papacy has made many political and religious moves towards regaining global supremacy over that last three decades.  It is a sad irony that at a time when we as SDAs are finally seeing with our own eyes the prophetic scenario that we have preached about for over 100 years now finally coming to pass, skeptics within the church are casting doubt upon their actual fulfillment.  The question must be asked: Where is their inspiration coming from?

TruthWave brings up an interesting point.

Because Ellen White wrote down the traditional Protestant view of the Papacy, does that tradition then become inspiration from God?

If it does then I think our whole prophetic outlook is distorted. (and yes I think that that is actually the case that our prophetic outlook is distorted, we have made too many incorrect assumptions).

I grew up Swiss and Adventist,  about  2 decades ago I was in Switzerland discussing politics with my uncle.  In Particular I was interested in his reaction to the formation of the Canton of Jura in 1979.  I was shocked when he informed me that that had been a plot of the Jesuits to tip the balance of power in the Swiss government.  After a little research of my own I understand how he could come to that conclusion though I disagree with him none the less.

There are at least two major developements involving the papacy that Adventists should be more familiar with. 

1854 the immaculate conception of Mary becomes dogma.

1870 Papal infallibilty becomes dogma.  (major schism follows in Switzerland, known as the Christian Chatholic Church, Old Catholic Church in Other German-speaking countries.)

These two developements really drove fear of the protestants regarding the papacy.  It should be remembered also that abuses of political influence by the Jesuits got them expelled from every Catholic country in Europe except Prussia (most survived in Poland which was ruled by Catherine the Great of Russia) and the the pope even disolved the order in 1773.   It was restored in 1814, but was only slowly allowed back into various counties.   (In Luzern CH in 1844, banned again from Switzerland after civil war in 1874, officially allowed back into the country in 1973 (Jura split 1979).

Yes there is plenty to be suspicious of, but I have learned living in the US that the past is -- well history --.  The future is what we make it and anything is possible, including an end of the world without the papacy or Sunday laws

Nathan, I agree with you that "climate change" is self-evidently a ruse to empower an international elite.  I've said that several times on this site, and others.  (In fact, my sister, not a practicing Adventist nor politically conservative, said that before I first  disclosed my opinion about it to her.)  The "science" is ludicrous, and for the last 10 years we've actually seen a global cooling trend.  But the fact that "global warming" is so obviously a power grab to me says that this is not the final deception, nor even close.  I think the final deceptions will be much more convincing and overpowering. 

As I said in my review of Knight's "the Neutering of Adventism" (posted on this site http://www.atoday.com/apocalyptic-vision-and-neutering-adventism-review-2.) both left and right have to very cautious about plugging in--and God forbid preaching from the pulpit--our pet theories as to why the curtain is closing on this earth's history.  (And let's not yank the curtain shut prematurely, as WFB Jr. said Adventist were wont to do.)  It's just very annoying.  I have always been very annoyed by the constant paranoia about the "religious right" and I imagine liberal Adventists would likewise be annoyed if I got up and said, ala Ron, that Obama signing a treaty on climate change meant the end of the world as we know it.  (BTW, Ron, any such a treaty would have to be confirmed by the Senate, by a two-thirds vote [Art. II, sec. 2], and we'll need a lot more climate change, i.e., hell freezing over, before that happens.)

We have what we have, in E.G. White's Great Controversy scenario, so let's just relax and see if that plays out. 

David wrote:

--

BTW, Ron, any such a treaty would have to be confirmed by the Senate, by a two-thirds vote [Art. II, sec. 2], and we'll need a lot more climate change, i.e., hell freezing over, before that happens.)

--

Yes I know that is in the Glenn Beck interview. As we see with the health care reconcilliation tactics rules are created by the senate and they can change their rules when they want and distort them how they want. 

Is it likely to happen this time...no probably not but certainly should be exposed which of course the big media news organizations don't do with the exception of fox news and talk radio which the White House is trying to delegitimize Fox news and warning others not to follow those nasty practices of asking questions and actually researching. 

The point is we are on a path now toward world government particularly sped up by this administration. Based upon hiding what they want to do, and lying about what they are doing. Can you really ever remembering when the US government went after a news orgainization, the Chamber of Commerence and Insurance companies  and attacked the free market. Yes  if you  remember Woodrow Wilson and your remember he outlawing criticism of the government, and imprisioned people for that cause as well as other restricted freedoms, all allowed by the Supreme Court at the time.

We are on that path once again.

TruthWave says:

--

Do you believe that EGW was under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit when she wrote the Great Controversy?

--

"If every paragraph in The Great Controversy were footnoted in accordance with accepted practice, giving credit where credit was due, ALMOST EVERY PARAGRAPH WOULD BE FOOTNOTED." - Donald R. McAdams, speaking at the Glendale Committee Mtg., January 28 - 29, 1980 "Ellen G. White and Her Sources"

http://www.babylonforsaken.com/borrowing.html

--

What you call inspiration I call literary borrowing and much of that was actually historically inaccurate as well. If the Holy Spirit had been guiding her it appears she did not follow instructions well unless you think that God endorses stealing other's ideas and making them appear to be yours and from God...which is even more troubling when some of those ideas are historically untrue. So your belief is probably more troubling in what it says about God than Ellen White, because it is easy for a person to delude themselves, but we are doomed if God does it to Himself.

Martin:  History repeats itself over and over in different times yes, but it basically repeats itself, because the human race does not learn from it, and they forget the past.  The future as outlined by the the prophesies of Revelation 13 call for a oppressive and controlling global government.  You admit that the Jesuits are a sinister organization that works in stealth like manner to achieve their aims so why would think that they have given up now?  Now they have a greater chance than ever before because of the fact that most people don't believe they were as evil as history records them to be.  Therefore they can work without resistance, while the majority of Evangelicals are working with them!  And now many SDA are wanting to go along with Rome as well.  If that is not a prophetic sign I don't know what is! 

Ron: Let's say that EGW footnoted everything that she wrote in the GC, but the basic premise of what she wrote was the same, would you then believe it to be truthful and inspired?  It seems that you are using technical issues to nullify the BIG picture of the end times that EGW was given by God.

And on a different note, how do you reconcile the rise and popularity of the Papacy and its favorable acceptance by Evangelicals in the USA nowadays?  Is that not a remarkable fulfillment of EGW's prediction?  

Truthwave wrote:

--

And on a different note, how do you reconcile the rise and popularity of the Papacy and its favorable acceptance by Evangelicals in the USA nowadays?  Is that not a remarkable fulfillment of EGW's prediction?  

--

You mean as opposed to the extreme anti catholic bias of the 1800's. Yea it would have been hard to maintain that kind of hate over a hundred years. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O119-AntiCatholicMovement.html

So I guess when you see Christians acting like Christians to Roman Catholics that must be a dramatic fulfillment...at least to those who had an irrational hate against Catholics and expect to always have that irrational hate.

As for the Great Controversy, no footnoting would not suddenly make the inaccurate history quoted truthful. The Bible was not banned in France during the French Revolution. The Waldensians were not Sabbath Keepers and much of the history is still wrong. If you study history then the Great Controversy is a perfect example of how not to reference history.

Ron, I don't think Harry Reid is quite cheeky enough to try to ratify a treaty using budget reconciliation rules.  The two-thirds majority is specified in the constitution: "He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."  There's no question that Obama is by far the most globalist president we've ever had, but he is also less likely to project American force than, say, Bush.  Before the end, we'll see an America both (1) extremely internationalist in orientation and (2) extremely willing to project American force, much more so than even Bush.  The Obama administration is not like that. 

Regarding the Wilson Administration, I was completely shocked by what he did (as told in Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism," which is one of the most important books in several years).  That wholesale imprisonment of political opponents by the "progressive" Wilson administration was a dark chapter of American history that I was unfamiliar with.  Trying to demonize Fox News and get it excluded from news pools is a bullying tactic, and shows the thuggish Chicago-style politics of Obama, Emmanuel and co., but is hardly comparable to Wilson's mass imprisonment of political opponents. 

As to Ellen White and Catholicism, it is a bait and switch to equate doctrinal differences with Rome to bigotry against Catholic people.  Ellen White was never in favor of the latter, and it is a fulfillment of her prophecies that so called "Protestants" have recently so papered over the former.  The wholesale adoption of Futurism and Preterism, as formulated by the Jesuits Francisco Ribera and Luis de Alcazar, in place of the historical school of prophetic interpretation that Protestants had once almost uniformly accepted, which points unmistakably to Rome as the anti-Christ, is a stunning indication that the Reformation is coming undone. 

Regarding what Ellen White wrote about the Albigenses and Waldenses, I'm always amazed by the historiographical naivete of her critics.  For centuries, the Waldenses were furiously persecuted, and none of them were allowed to receive a formal education.  Their history, including the idea that they originated with Peter Waldo in the 12th Century, was written by their Catholic persecutors.  The official history that Waldenses themselves wrote was written centuries after they had joined with post-Reformation Protestants and adopted the Sunday-keeping of those groups.  I wouldn't be so quick to deny that historically some of the Waldenses kept the Sabbath.  Remember that Amrose of Milan's (337 - 397) statement "when in Rome do as the Romans do" was regarding the Roman Christian's habit of keeping Sunday, whereas the northern Italian Christians kept Saturday.  It seems likely that many people continued to keep Sabbath in remote mountain valleys long after Sunday keeping had become general in the lowlands.   http://www.bereanbiblecorner.com/Lessons/General/Confidence%20in%20the%20Spirit%20of%20Prophecy.pdf.

Regarding the Albigenses, nobody will ever know what they believed, because they were successfully wiped out, eradicated, by a crusade called by the pope specifically for the purpose of exterminating them.  Of course the Catholic Church alleges that Cathar beliefs were extremely unorthodox--it needs to justify the slaughter it commanded and carried out.  As to what they believed, and whether there were not a good many Bible-believers among them, I will accept Ellen White's inspired testimony, not that of their inquisitorial torturers like Bernard Gui.  You're welcome to accept what Catholic sources like Gui have written, but please understand that it is like accepting at face value a Nazi-written history of the Jews. 

David wrote:

--

Remember that Amrose of Milan's (337 - 397) statement "when in Rome do as the Romans do" was regarding the Roman Christian's habit of keeping Sunday, whereas the northern Italian Christians kept Saturday. 

--

Not quite right

--

Stories behind Famous Sayings

The Saying: WHEN IN ROME, DO AS THE ROMANS DO.

Who Said It: St. Ambrose

When: 387 A.D.

The Story behind It: When St. Augustine arrived in Milan, he observed that the Church did not fast on Saturday as did the Church at Rome. He consulted St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, who replied: "When I am at Rome, I fast on a Saturday; when I am at Milan, I do not. Follow the custom of the Church where you are." The comment was changed to "When they are at Rome, they do there as they see done" by Robert Burton in his Anatomy of Melancholy. Eventually it became "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." http://www.trivia-library.com/b/origins-of-sayings-when-in-rome-do-as-th...

--

As for a bait and switch the point is that anything is progress from a hysterical anti-catholic America, but of course that is not What White suggested though that is what many SDA's think she meant. So whenever they see Catholics and Evangelicals agreeing on anything they act as if it is a fulfilled prophecy. 

As for the Waldenses I will post an article I am soon to write on my blog because I found that the book which is most frequently used to back up the SDA position is on google books now. And we can now see from the context that the author is quoting someone who he feels does not know what he is talking about.

Adventist Media Response and Conversation

Permit me to offer a couple of observations on Ellen White.  If she is to be viewed as an authoritative source of inspiration for the Church because of the prophetic status that has been bestowed on her, we can hardly claim to believe in sola scriptura. Ellen White's embellishments and interpretations sweep through the entirety of the Bible.  We learn from her not only what God and the Biblical characters did, how they did it, and why they did it, but also what they, including God, were thinking when they did it.

Who has greater authority - the author of a work, or the arbiter and interpreter of that work?  Clearly, it seems to me, it is the latter.  The Supreme Court unfortunately has far greater Constitutional authority than the drafters of the Constitution or the writers of the Federalist Papers, who tried to explain the meaning of the Constitution so as to constrain creative interpretations that would eviscerate our founding principles.  Likewise, in the hands of Church authorities, which for decades incontinently referenced Ellen White in the S.S. Lesson Quarterlies, Ellen White has had far greater authority for SDAs than Scripture.  Generations of Adventists have been inculcated with the need to put on "Sister White" spectacles in reading Scripture and setting behavioral norms. The mantra that Ellen White is the "lesser light to lead to the greater light" does not obscure the reality that, if her interpretations and embellishments are authoritative, she is not a lesser light, but a super-prophet, much greater than the writers of Scripture themselves.

Was Ellen White the recipient of prophetic inspiration?  I think so.  Was she a fraud? Probably sometimes.  Should she be considered authoritative?  No, at least not for the Church as a whole.  Authority beyond a particular time period is something that is generally conferred on a prophet by the test of many generations. The fact that Ellen White was so revered and honored in her own Church, in her own time, is quite out of keeping with most prophetic traditions, wherein true prophets are generally reviled, beaten, and stoned by the faith communities to which their message is addressed.

To my way of thinking, prophetic authority should stand independent from the props and hype of an institutional sponsor.  Jesus underscored the importance of this criteria when he pointed to John the Baptist. John, like Jesus, rose up with no corporate sponsor or institutional stamp of approval.  They both stood against the religious establishment in which they were reared.  Yet they spoke with authority to a vast audience of Jews yearning to find meaning beyond the diktats of whitewashed sepulchers.  And their authority echoed in future generations far beyond the Jewish communities they addressed. 

Ellen White spoke to her contemporaries with great authority.  But most of what she left to us was not unique.  She has retained authority for SDAs because she was put in Red Books by the Church, and force fed to generations of SDAs through institutional authority.  Yes, she has been, and continues to be, a great source of comfort and inspiration for millions of Adventists.  But that does not mean she should be a source of Biblical authority.  Merely being inspired does not confer transgenerational authority on a prophet.  Maybe in a thousand years she will be added to the Biblical Canon, or catch on, like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, with a larger audience, independent of heavy institutional sponsorship. But right now we need to establish her authority, if warranted, through independent reading and study of Scripture, rather than seeing Scripture through her presumed authority. 

Nathan, I will happily concede your point if you can show me one example of an Ellen White scriptural interpretation as far off base as, say, the Roe court's notion that a right of privacy encompassing abortion arises out of the penumbra of the Bill of Rights.   

Well, you've got me there, David.  I do not think Ellen White did violence to the spirit and meaning of God's Word the way the Supreme Court has done to the Constitution.  I think most of her writings deepen respect and love for God's Word. But let me offer a Constitutional parallel for what I think is the problem with using Ellen White as Scriptural authority.  

The Wall of Separation analogy used by he Supreme Court to describe church-state relations was not far off base.  It was welcomed by many Christians, particularly SDAs, as salutary padding to protect against the long arm of government insinuating itself into the realm of religion.  But as the Church and the Supreme Court saw "Congress shall make no law..." more and more through the opaque Wall of Separation, the country lost sight of the First Amendment, and the Wall of Separation has insidiously become a weapon against religion in general, undermining rather than protecting the free expression of religious convictions. Increasingly, free expression of religion is limited to a circumscribed realm of privacy, which must accommodate homosexual practices, abortion and whatever other politically correct moral mandates the Supreme Court wants to use as First Amendment trump cards.

Once we are habituated to look at Scripture and Christ through human filters, no matter how inspired those filters may be, we are in danger of losing sight of Christ, just as we have lost sight of the actual words and meaning of The First Amendment by seeing it through "Wall of Separation" filters.  How many Adventists have abandoned not only the Church, but religion in general, and God in particular, once they lost faith in Ellen White? This is a tragedy.  As Paul Tillich observed, the most important job of the church is to confront souls with the unadorned Christ, unencumbered by human religious and theological filters as much as possible, so that they must either accept or reject Him rather than the packaging in which He is peddled.  By leading with Ellen White, the Church has obscured the Christ of Scripture, making itself, rather than Christ, the way, the truth, and the life.

It's not that Ellen White is far off base, any more than a painting of The Grand Canyon may be far off base.  But the painting is no substitute for going there and experiencing it first hand.  And once you get there, wouldn't it would be a bit silly to let the painting inform or dictate the reality of what you are experiencing? 

Nathan said......

"As Paul Tillich observed, the most important job of the church is to confront souls with the unadorned Christ, unencumbered by human religious and theological filters as much as possible, so that they must either accept or reject Him rather than the packaging in which He is peddled.  By leading with Ellen White, the Church has obscured the Christ of Scripture, making itself, rather than Christ, the way, the truth, and the life."

The principle is correct, Nathan. But your application is faulty. Instead of substituting EGW for the bible, the present day church has substituted "the church" for both EGW and the bible.

Historically our church evangelism never "lead with EGW". You create a "false dilemma" by assuming we used EGW to substanciate our historic doctrine. But in fact, when the modern SDA church abandon EGW, they also abandon the bible.

And your final conclusion is valid in this context, "the church" now takes the place of both scripture and EGW. And so the quote by  Paul Tillich has a very dynamic application to modern Adventism.

Jesus and His word have been abandon for the "word of the church". And as I stated before, this happens because people are persuaded of the unconditional election of "the church" and abandon their individual moral accountability to the same.

"The church has said and decided" is now the accepted norm for many if not most present day SDA's. It makes life easier and more convenient if you don't have to decide for yourself what is right or wrong. And even if people see the church is wrong according to the bible, they have been brain washed to think that somehow God will in some special magic way "cleanse the church" and they need not concern themselves about the corruption of the church.

And finally, "unity at all cost" is equally a false tool used by "the church" to deceive and delude the members, along with "you can't judge anybody".

Let me state clearly the implications of these false theories.

The law of God is undermined and today,  large portions of the SDA church, is part of the antichrist movement and taking a major role in advancing his kingdom and principles.

As Tillich so clearly maintained, the Holy Spirit creates the Christian community by way of the bible and when "the church" places itself in the place of the bible, it is the antichrist church.

This,  Adventism is doing more and more with no sign of repentance or reformation. It is clear to any spiritually minded person that "acceptance" has now taken the place of repentance and conversion. So that repentance and conversion play no part in determining who can be a church member and who can't.

And whoever is willing to join, it immeadiately pushed up on the platform as highly qualified to lead and instruct anybody and everybody in Christian spirituality. After all, "we can't judge" in any matter. So they soon obtain authority and influence as the devil uses novices to control "the church" to advance his kingdom.

And anyone who is willing to consider the implications of what I have stated can only say, "Amen". They know it is true and can't deny it. The bible so convoluted from its true meaning and application, we could wonder if anyone really reads it or even considers the implications of its teaching.

And of course, EGW must equally be set aside, for in some things she is more definitive in explaining some principles than the bible does.

So we must ask, "Who is really the final antichrist?" Who is the most instrumental in corrupting the word of God? Maybe we are looking in the wrong direction.

It was Luther who said, "The Pope  I fear most, is 'pope self'".

Maybe Adventism should carefully consider this principle as they continue to point to Rome as the antichrist. I doubt the devil cares much about Adventism evangelism since he controls much of Adventism today.

I am still a member of the SDA church. But remember, I said the church is censured by the church of Bill Sorensen. I am still waiting for them to "repent" so they can be returned to full fellowship in my church. And I belong to the church of heaven where the angels are members.

It was Roger Williams who said, "I would rather fellowship with heathen who act like Christians, than so-called Christians who act like heathen." This was after they threatened him and he went to Rhode Island to establish religious liberty and teach Christ among the indians.

Bill Sorensen

In response to TruthWave:

I do not believe that history repeats itself.  World War 2 was not a repeat of World War 1; The American occupation of Afghanistan is not a repeat of the Soviet occupation (though both certainly dealt with similar challenges).  Secondly I did not say that the Jesuits "are" a sinister organization (There definately "were" Jesuits who were sinister), Nor did I say that they worked in a "stealth like manner".  All aristocratic politics are stealth so while I suppose they did work in stealth, it was no more so than any other political leaders of that time.

I am in fact very sceptical of "conspiracy theories".  I remember well being when I was informed by a seminarian at Bogenhoffen that Samuele Bacchiocci was Jesuit plant.  I thought that's ridiculous, but after a quick scan of his writings I changed my mind.  As I considered how the church should deal with this possible threat it occured to me that most direct course of action would destroy the church(finding and disfellowshipping anyone who might be a Jesuit spy).  It became very clear that fighting a conspiracy would be hopeless, because one could never be certain who to trust.  And that was my eureka moment.  We could really only trust God anyway.  Jesus did not teach us to suspect that others were our secret enemies rather that we should love all, even our enemies.  The only course of action which makes sense is to always teach others from one's own experience and assume that they are teaching from theirs.  I think the suspicion nurtured by conspiracy theories inhibits our ability to truely love as God loves and therefore it is a weight which easily besets us.

Martin, don't you think an Italian who was educated at the Pontifical Gregorian University, a Jesuit institution in Rome, is a little obvious for a Jesuit plant?  I think the Jesuits are much smarter and more subtle than that.

Let me make myself more clear about Bacchiocci:  I thought the charge of him being a Jesuit plant to be be ridiculous, but after scan through his writings I was surprised that he generally does not express the strong condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church that most other conservative writers express.  I was wrong about the suspicion being ridiculous and without any evidence, I remained sceptical about the charge as it pertained to Dr. Bacchiocci, but began to be drawn in by the whole question of to what extent had the Jesuits infiltrated our church.  It was then that I decided that all these conpiracy theories, (Jesuits, illuminati, Masons, Mormons, Trilateral Comission, Counsel on Foreign Relations, and on and on) lead to ever increasing paranoia which could only hinder the promotion of the Kingdom of God.

I do not and did think Bacchiocci was a Jesuit.

Ron, with regard to "when in Rome do as the Romans do," after some preliminary research, I think what was happening was that many Christians in the late 4th Century were observing both Saturday and Sunday in some fashion or other.  More traditional Sabbath-keeping was being done in Constantinople and in Northern Italy including Milan.  This traditional Sabbath-keeping did not, of course, include fasting.  The rationale for the Roman custom of fasting on Sabbath was because Jesus was in the grave on that day and the apostles were mourning, i.e., the Roman rationale had nothing to do with the Fourth Comandment.  The Roman custom was a way-station on the way to fully ignoring the Sabbath in favor of full Sunday observance. 

Obviously, I'm not here trying to prove this in a scholarly, rigorous fashion, but I think I could, if given enough time and page space. 

Having written my a master's thesis on Constantine:  His Legacy to Western Civilization and Christianity, I have done research on this period quite extensively.

 At the time of his edict of Milan, granting religious tolerance to the Roman Empire, it was the first act of the first century giving freedom of religious practice.

A few years later, in 325, he pronounced that all citizens of the Empire would be given the first day of the week as a rest from work, excepting certain agricultural labors.  This was in recognition that by that time, the large population of Christians, estimated to be l7.4% of the Greco-Roman world, and 18.0% of the Egyptian world (Rodney Stark), would have been approximately 182 million by the end of the fourth century:  reaching half the population of the Mediterranean world by that time.  Because Christians comprised the higher educated and more affluent. their influence was likely even more than the numbers represented. 

 Constantine, highly aware of the influence and power of Christianity, and the legend of his becoming converted only increased his ability to unify the Empire by acknowledging Christianity and giving them complete freedom to worship on the day that they had been celebrating the Resurrection since the first century. 

 This has been recognized by SDA theologians:  Gerhard Damsteegt, Mervyn Maxwell and Kenneth Strand that Sunday was very early celebrated as a special day in honor of the Resurrection.

Following the destruction of the Temple in 70, there is no further record of Jewish/Christians, but only the gentile Christians after that date.  If there is record of some observing the 7th day, it is quite sparse and little is known of that in historical records.

"the legend of his becoming converted"?  Elaine, surely you are not denying that Constantine's conversion was genuine?

Constantine continued to help build pagan temples, and all the historians report only that he reported a vision seeing a cross in the sky and had it emblazoned on the armies' banners.  Only he would know if the reported conversion was true.  Who should be asked?

Quoting from the eminent historian, Jacob Burckhardt:

"Constantine's historical memory has suffered the greatest misfortune conceivable...he has fallen into the hands of the most objectionable of all eulogists... Eusebius in his book "Life of Constantine."  Constantine never assumed the guise of or gave himself out as a Christian but kept his free personal convictions quite unconcealed to his very last days...from his first political appearance Constantine consistently acted according to the principle which energetic ambition, as long as the world has endured has called 'necessity'...His tactic, which enjoyed a brilliant success in his own day and throughout the Middle Ages, consisted in making the first great protector of the Church at all costs an ideal of humanity according to his lights, and above all an idea for future rulers... we have lost the picture of a genius in stature who knew no moral scruple in politics and regarded the religious question exclusively from the point of view of political expediency."

 It is an historical fact that he killed his son, and nephew, then his wife, then a crowd of friends. 

 Whether the question was facetious or serious, Constantine is an enigma of history and many books have been written on his life.  The SDA position, often read only in EGW's books does not stand historical accuracy.

Constantine continued to help build pagan temples, and all the historians report only that he reported a vision seeing a cross in the sky and had it emblazoned on the armies' banners.  Only he would know if the reported conversion was true.  Who should be asked?

Quoting from the eminent historian, Jacob Burckhardt:

"Constantine's historical memory has suffered the greatest misfortune conceivable...he has fallen into the hands of the most objectionable of all eulogists... Eusebius in his book "Life of Constantine."  Constantine never assumed the guise of or gave himself out as a Christian but kept his free personal convictions quite unconcealed to his very last days...from his first political appearance Constantine consistently acted according to the principle which energetic ambition, as long as the world has endured has called 'necessity'...His tactic, which enjoyed a brilliant success in his own day and throughout the Middle Ages, consisted in making the first great protector of the Church at all costs an ideal of humanity according to his lights, and above all an idea for future rulers... we have lost the picture of a genius in stature who knew no moral scruple in politics and regarded the religious question exclusively from the point of view of political expediency."

 It is an historical fact that he killed his son, and nephew, then his wife, then a crowd of friends. 

 Whether the question was facetious or serious, Constantine is an enigma of history and many books have been written on his life.  The SDA position, often read only in EGW's books does not stand historical accuracy.

Elaine, what is the SDA position?  In favor of the genuineness of Constantine's conversion is the fact that Christians were still a small minority of the population in the early 4th Century, perhaps 10 to 15%, so politics would not seem to be an adequate explanation.  But as you noted, Constantine's crimes are well established in the historical record, and he committed them after his conversion.

The comments posted here for the most part appear to support traditional SDA eschatology. A socialistic view purported by the Pope is nothing new. Ever heard of world socialism which was to engulf the western governments? These prognostications started with Karl Marx.

Fear and paranoia are alive and well within the SDA community. Moreover the people that post here exhibit a very acute skepticism for the natural sciences yet seem not to apply the same skepticism for their own beliefs. But, I forgot, "we have the truth." 

Wow!  I've seen some discussions on this site range far and wide on a topic, but rarely have I seen them all miss the mark by such a wide (and revealing) margin! 

As a veteran of the fund-raising department at an Adventist media ministry (Faith For Today in the mid-80s) let me give you a clue about what Doug Batchelor and his team have done.  The issue has nothing to do with end-time events or your view of Ellen White's writings and everything to do with playing on your beliefs and fears about them to raise money for the ministry.  That's the bottom-line, pure and simple. 

If you're on their mailing list and you get a "send money" letter, stop for a moment before you write your check or drop it in the trash.  Try to separate yourself from your emotions long enough to observe a few things.  First is how the content is designed to appeal to your heart.  They never tell you that things are going great and that you don't need to send money.  Second, if the tone is "help us keep up the good work" you know that they were probably receiving a good cash flow when the letter was written and they want to remind you to keep the money coming so they can keep doing whatever they're doing.  But if you get one that looks different, maybe a "yellow screamer" that arrives in a yellow envelope with urgent words printed on yellow paper, you know their cash flows are down.  If you get something really different, like the "newspaper" from AF, you know their cash flows are down enough that they're looking at cutbacks in their operations if more people don't send more money right away.  

The folks at AF are savvy fund-raisers.  Have they pushed your buttons enough to get you to write them a donation check?

wfnoel raises a a good point. These alarmist end of days SDA ministries are constantly sending out the sky is falling mailings which suggest that if you do not send them money immediately, then all is lost. 

The smartest thing I ever did was sharpen the blades on my paper shredder for such SDA tripe. 

And to "Doctorf" may I say that I too am sharpening the blades on my paper shredder.

Truthwave,

What is this nonsense that I must believe that someone must be "under the influence and guidance of the holy spirit" in order to have their writings resonate with me personally?

How does one test for "real visions, inspiration or guidance" by the holy spirit?

The more time that passes between "prophets" and their writings the more tenable they become. If current SDA leaders start proclaiming that their utterances and writings are coming straight from God, I suspect that in time we would be sedating them.