Thank you, Michael, for your timely warning. Yes - I've watched the storm clouds of intolerance gather and have believed for many years that it will be "cultural" rather than "doctrinal" issues that will united the world in opposition to "God's people."

What really, really, really troubles me - is the large number of SDA's that are on the Chuck Colson side.

Typical results of failure to preach sufficient bible and moral law from pulpit>> Resort to external controls and laws.

Colsen was active in the ECT documents (Evangelicals and Catholics Together). Many had signed this document but was opposed by R.C. Sproul, John Macarther, John Ankerberg, and James D. Kennedy. Who had a forum and discussed some of these issues in Kennedy's church in Florida.

Because of the mixture of truth and error, it will be more and more difficult to distinguish and decide what is the right course to take.

Certainly, the Sabbath "day" will seem more and more non relevant in light of the more important issues in society according to those who support the new movement.

No doubt, many SDA's will eventually agree the "day" aspect of the Sabbath is not important enough to divide the church or the world.

This is why any compromise on any bible issue such as the ordaining of women is destructive to the principle of "bible only" to define Christian morality and the true meaning of "faith and practice".

We see the "spirit ethic" at work in the Christian community and the world in this discussion. So, "the spirit of truth" superceeds the biblical form. A basic Catholic concept of a true spirituality. Not a few Protestants agree and more and more will join in based on this false idea.

Bill Sorensen

I seem to remember that the Civil Rights movement was largely church led. Should Dr. King have been told to stay at the back of the bus because he was religious? Religious people have every right to voice their opinions and work in favor of what they think is for the common good. For example we could support laws that make Sunday a day of rest, that would work just as well as Saturday. The real inquisition is the one that tells religious people that their beliefs are only private and should not ever be expressed publicly. A historical note, in Spain the inquisition was largely a royal institution. Even when the Pope attempted to issue decrees to reform it the government refused to promulgate them. The Church has been a bulwark against State power. Someones values are going to win, why should they be the ones of a debased secular culture? I support the Manhattan declaration and refuse to sit in the back of the bus anymore.
Fr. Jim

Germany’s Highest Court Rules Against Sunday Shopping

www.adventistreview

Pat, the Catholic Church was not on either train. See Mit Brennder Sorge. We do not infringe on the State when we work for our view of the common good. Nothing in the Constitution forbids churches from exercising their rights in the public square. Let's be honest, if the Congress passed a law mandating Saturday sabbath laws most Adventists wouldn't mind a bit.

" We do not infringe on the State when we work for our view of the common good."

Yes, as long as the "common good" is defined by the Catholic church. And when the State is not in harmony with the Catholic view, then the Catholic church claims authority over the civil government. So, the Catholic church controls the civil government.

As long as the civil law is in agreement with the Catholic church, they have no problem.

But the Constitution of the US is contrary to Rome's principles.

The only freedom of religion Rome knows, is freedom for the Catholic church to exercise her authority over the civil government.

When Rome uses phrases like "civil rights" "religious liberty" and such, we should not be deceived as to what they mean. Only as all these concepts are defined and interpreted by "the church" do they advocate such phrases.

And after "the church" has defined them, they have no viable meaning at all. Rome is the master of "word games".

Don't let Fr Jim fool you.

Bill Sorensen

Bill,

I attempt to not let "Ft.Jim fool me" Nor our own "Religious Liberty" dept.

We must be "deep thinkers" of Christ and His kingdom and not be used of anyone "for short term capital gain."

Sound doctrine is not an end in itself. It exposes those things that are in opposition to "Christ's Kingdom."
2 Cor.10:3-5.

As well, it saves ourselves and those who will hear it. 1 Tim.4:16.

regards,
pat

Fr Jim
The Civil Rights Movement was not church led. It was led by a few courageous Christians (some of them "even" homosexuals) who did something that churches rarely do: stand up for moral values when it really counts and when it's risky doing so.

Not even the African-American Baptist church in the South supported dr. King. Individuals from a number of ideological backgrounds, Christians, communists, Jews and no doubt atheists spearheaded this movement.

Mr Peabody
You state "From a strictly human perspective, the document is troubling as well. It focuses on human power to effect changes in human laws which will in turn effect the hearts of the people."

While I disagree with the aims of this particular ecumenical initiative--essentially an attempt to keep gays from enjoying the same freedoms we do--I don't share your concern. What you fear is what the Federal government did to resolve 70 years of Southern segregation: It changed the law without waiting for the relalcitrant Southerners to first change their mind and values. It was the conservative point of view at that time that blacks should wait to press their claims for rights until the hearts of the white people had changed (remember MLK's Letter from Birmingham Jail?").

In principle churches, in my opinion, can lobby and preach as much as they want for changes in current law. As long as a country has a Constitution and a Supreme Court looking out for the equal rights of minorities and a government willing to enforce these rights(which this country did not have during Segregation), we should not fear Fr Jim and Brother Colson standing up for what they believe.

The fear of a coup d'etat by conservative churches is one I don't share. Much can be said about this country but the vast majority of its people actually believe in its Constition and any law is subject to constitutional scrutiny (aka Judical Review).

PS. In Norway, one of the most secular countries in the Western World, there is a law on the books which mandates respect for the Day of Rest (Sunday). It's essentially a law against people firing up their lawnmowers and chainsaws at 8 o'clock in the morning and nobody seems to object to it. It would be struck down by the US Supreme Court but--as in Germany--these type of laws are not always what they look like to Americans.

in Spain the inquisition was largely a royal institution

Michael,

"Christians tempted to set aside theological differences, which include differences in how grace and salvation are viewed so significant that they led to the battles of the Reformation and Inquisition, and unite on points held in common in order to change society should recall the unholy results of such unions." (This was basically the argument used by SDA's previously against the ECT document and it's dangerous union)

Since you "indirectly" refer to the ECT document it’s legitimacy centers ultimately on the meaning of JBF "alone."

I saw professors at RTS such as R.C. Sproul oppose the document for that reason.

This may offend you and others but Roy Gane's most recent article in the Ministry Magazine on JBF would be accepted as beneficial to most in favor of the ECT dialogue as it “clouds” the true issue of the continual need of the saints to “be reckoned righteous.” I refer to that as “dichotomy between 2&3 of his list.”

I refer to this problem in the last two comments of this Spectrum span which received no interest. That was my motive. I am not offended simply because it is not me that is offended rather ,“forgive them father they don’t know what they do.”
http://spectrummagazine.org/articles/sabbath_school/2009/11/15/reddish_c...

regards,
pat

PS. Aage...feel your remarks were "objective" to the article.

Fr. Jim,

"Pat, we believe in original sin. All of us are influenced by evil. But we also believe that gospel values are conducive to the common good. We are obligated, despite our sinfulness, to influence society in positive directions. This has always been the case in American society. It is only in recent times that some have sought to silence those of faith. This impoverishes public discourse and reduces faith to only the private sphere. This was never what the Constitution intended or says. I believe firmly in the American experiment."

Ageed....

and Congresss shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. A great document!

Regards & Peace,
pat

Fr Jim said.....

" I believe firmly in the American experiment."

If so, he is not a loyal Roman Catholic. Unless of course, he means, until the experiment fails and Rome again takes control. He, like many, have a way of wording things so you can not clearly define exactly what he means.

Bill Sorensen

Bill
The word "anachronistic" comes to mind when I read your anti-catholic screed. This is the way Protestants used to argue but surely we have moved on by now.

Let's look at a couple of points. You state:"Rome historically, and still claims, that they act in behalf of God and punish civil law disobedience in the name of God.Of course, they turn the offender over to the civil authorities to carry out the sentence. Much as the Jews who turned Jesus over to Rome to crucify Him. But only after they had cursed Him and condemned Him to death and consigned Him to hell.

1. You're talking about the modern RCC and in the same breath exhaling belches from the Middle Ages. Yes, the Western Church often behaved badly before the Reformation and after it was split in two, both branches, RCC and Protestant, at times abused their power badly. You might as well have spoken of John Calvin as of the Catholic church when you talk about handing people over to secular authorities. Calvin burned Servetus to death in Geneva; Luther was hardly better.

2. Bill, based on your reasoning in which a thousand years is a day and the crimes of the Middle Ages are the transgressions of yesterday, Fr Jim might as well accuse you of being guilty of drowning Anabaptists or burning Servetus since these crimes were perpetrated a mere 500 years ago by the founding fathers of Protestantism.

I guess few today who profess Protestantism really know what it is. But for anyone with even a superficial understanding of Adventism, this is tragic.

Small wonder, "the whole world wonders after the beast."

Bill Sorensen

Since Aage doesn't profess Protestantism, as I recall, I am Curious if that was addressed towards anyone or was it just a "generic" statement.

regards,
pat

It was about Protestantism in general. But this is a SDA type of discussion, I assume. And those who comment, I would think, are aware of this fact.

Some of us at least, don't apologize for being "antiCatholic" and still equate the Pope as either being the antichrist, or, at least, represents him. Certainly, Satan is the ultimate antichrist.

But he has his followers just as Jesus has His. And yes, I am aware that some who are Catholic are not even aware of the spirituality of their church and assume it represents the kingdom of heaven.

I am also aware this principle applies to any and all other denominations, not excepting Seventh-day Adventism.

People join a denomination for a number of reasons. And even if the reason has some biblical credibility, it won't justify their ignorance on other non-biblical issues.

Even if Rome can point back to a continuity with the early church, it does not follow that it still represents the early church. Apostacy comes in by degrees and the church changes. And this principle applies equally to Adventism.

Bill Sorensen

The early church never sought, and neither did Christ, to change or transform society's woes through legislative enactment. The only time the Church has had a say or power of influence in social concerns is either when it was in power over or along side government, or in a "free" society in which organizations and people, either religious or non religoius, have a voice.

Society is not changed in any real and permenant, or God accepted, way through human legislative enactments (in fact, she has not been given that mission). At worse it brings persecution upon those who don't see it the same way, or at the very leastt makes for a whited sepulchre religious experience. The Church can only truly militate society for proper and lasting change when it lives the principles of Christ and seeks to share the gospel and win souls to Himself. The Church's mission is not to make God's kingdom on earth, but to share the good news of the coming kingdom that God Himself will set up in the final end.

Any voice and influence given by the Church in mitigating practices and policies that errod society's health is to only be seen as a kind of stop gap in order to continue to share the gospel and reach people before sorted and degrading effects of said practices and polices render a person incapable of responding to God's Good News.

Kevin James

"The Church's mission is not to make God's kingdom on earth, but to share the good news of the coming kingdom that God Himself will set up in the final end."

And this idea is just one of the basic errors embraced by false Christanity. Jesus said plainly, "My kingdom is not of this world" and yet, few really believe Him.

And so "religion" thinks it is their duty to legislate God's law in a "worldly" society.

While God's kingdom is represented in this world by His church, it is not of the world nor does it endeavor to "force" God's principles on society.

This does not mean Christians have no part to play in civil society. We believe in "civil righteousness" that is considerably more "generic" than God's law.

"Thou shalt not kill" or "steal" or "bear false witness" is simply a surface righteousness as a bare minimum to exist in a non-definable and less exacting rule of life in this world.

So, civil law emulates to some degree God's law. But it is not God's law. It is man's law. God enforces His own law and needs no one to legislate for Him.

And yes, God approves human legislation the emulates to some degree His kingdom. But "we ought to obey God, rather than men" is always the cry of the Christian community when in opposition to the bible.

Rome's purpose is to make no distinction between the two. Either in fact or in administration. So Rome wants to control the civil government and legislate God's law in society. And in the name of God.

Simply put, no distinction in seperation of church and state.

If this world was God's kingdom, then we could consider this possibility as a reality. But not until the earth is made new will this become a fact.

Certainly, Satan will emulate the second coming and deceive many into thinking the reality of the future kingdom is now present. He can only do this if the bible is abandon and ignored.

Bill Sorensen

Bill, I will give you a little hint. A lawyer usually doesn't ask a question he doesn't already know the answer too. Bear that in mind.

Bill, when I was in the military I took an oath of loyalty. Have you ever done that? The Church did not stop me. Nor has the Church ever negated the State and simply ruled as a theocracy. For example France had a government separate from the Church. There were constant fights then, as there are now, over Church vs. State relations. If we just controlled everything then there would have been no controversy. Certainly in history there were different understandings of Church and State relations then we have in the US, but it was not at all like you are claiming. Often it was the State that attempted to usurp the rights of the Church.

As a US citizen I have every right to vote and to work for my ideas to become law. So do you. Are you saying that I, as a Catholic, should be denied my rights? That has happened before in US history. Everyone has the right to work for things they believe serve the common good.

The Bible was canonized by the Church. Nowhere does it say the Bible alone is all we need. Search in vain for that verse. Worship on Sunday dates to the Apostles. I doubt the US government is interested in suddenly changing its tune and kowtowing to every Catholic whim. As I pointed out they are not very accommodating on abortion issues.

I note that you did not quote the catechism or canon law. You simply make an assertion and give no evidence to back it up. For example I know of no canon that says that the Pope is head of all civil governments. I have done plenty of research in my time. Maybe you should start to do some. The catechism and code are online and free. Start there. Otherwise you are just embarrassing yourself.

Fr. Jim,

I am curious, that if you were a priest and US Legislator, if one "could" (if one chose) to support the right of individual citizens, who do not share your faith, to practice "artificial birth control" (not abortion) and have it covered either by private or national health insurance.

How about a member of your parish?

Would there be ramifications to one's status since this is in variance to a Papal encyclical "Humanae Vitae."

regards,
pat

Luther and Calvin were as blood thirsty as any Roman. Except for burning at the stake, Seventh-day Adventist are endowed with no more Grace or Mercy than any other and that is because of civil law not natural inclination. Thomas Jefferson had it right--let us keep it that way. Tom

Pat, we do not allow priests to run for political office. It was decided that this could create problems. If a Catholic runs for office then he does not check his faith at the door. He can and should say what he does or does not support and then let the voter decide. For example he can say that he will not vote in favor of abortion and that if someone disagrees then they can vote for the other guy. Artificial contraception is no longer illegal. He could try to pass a law to outlaw it, but that probably would not pass. The Church would not expect him to attempt it. But for instance if they wanted to pass a law giving free contraceptives to 8 year olds a Catholic should oppose that and if the voters feel he is wrong they can vote him out of office. No one should be expected to check their most deeply held beliefs at the door. Should an Adventist legislator be forced to vote for a Sunday law? No, he can vote against it and then let the voters decide if he is to be returned to office. Someones morals/ideas are going to be reflected in the law, so why should we allow only secularist or liberal ideas to be considered?

>>> Religious people have every right to voice their opinions and work in favor of what they think is for the common good.

I agree with you on this also.

Personally I think they should restrict themselves to pushing for things that are for the common good IN THIS LIFE.

I don't think that, even if they have the votes to do it, they should pass laws that are justified only in terms of 'my God told me this is the right thing to do'.

/Bevin

"Bill, I swore to protect and defend the Constitution."

Then you are not a very good Catholic. But then, a lot of "Catholics" in America are not very good Catholics. They defend what the church does not believe.

Bill Sorensen

Bill

Not an argument just an observation. Percentage wise, I suggest there are fewer Seventh-day Adventists who can explain the Investigative Judgment than there are Roman Catholics who can explain the immaculate conception.

Well, Tom, this is just a conjecture. But I think more SDA's have a least a practical working idea of what the IJ stands for than Catholics do concerning all their doctrines.

The IJ simply means there is a judgment of the church before Jesus comes. From there, this judgment is based on the ten commandment law in particular and the whole bible in general.

Other particulars are not as well known but certainly the state of the dead is inherent in most people's understanding who profess the SDA faith.

And it is my observation in witnessing to non-SDA's, that most SDA's have a far more comprehensive understanding of their faith than other denominations. When you are challenged as to what you believe and why, it tends to sharpen your focus. And historically, SDA's have been challenged more than most.

I am not suggesting that SDA's in general don't follow the path of other churches in the sense that when you become a member, you feel secure and this security is destructive to the necessity of knowing more than you do to be ready for Jesus to come.

"What must I do to be saved?" becomes a dead question for most church members, and I don't care what denomination they belong to.

A false application of the gospel is the result of the carnal nature that fails to discern the true spiritual import of any doctrine. But assurance and security is especially destructive of a true bible faith when it is wrested from its biblical perspective.

"I'm OK, you're OK" is an easy flowing idea that genders massive doses of affirmation in the Christian community that destroys the dynamic spiritual meaning of the bible.

"What must I do to be saved?" is never static, but always dynamic. And when it is not, the devil soon takes control with all kinds of false doctrines and carnal implications of what is truth and how it is applied.

Modern Adventism is shot through with as many errors as the Catholic church. And the reason they are not corrected is based on the carnal "church election" that the church must somehow succeed and is in some way infallible.

How is this different than Rome? It is not. When EGW says "the church will go through to the end", we must necessarily consider the conditions that make this a possibility. As you know, she can be carnally interpreted as easily as the bible.

If we accept her statement as a moral imperative to seek earnestly to know and do God's will in preparation for Jesus coming, then it is dynamic. But if we use it for some non-biblical carnal election as Rome does, then it is static and non-productive of its intended purpose.

Sad to say, much of Adventism uses her statement in harmony with Rome's view of church election.

In short, there is no "unconditional election" for the church anymore than for an individual. The Holy Spirit creates the Christian community through the bible. And as Luther said, "The task of interpreting scripture belongs to the whole church community." No man, or group of individuals has the authority to state truth and claim their view is infallible.

"The priesthood of all believers" simply means we are all "a church" in and of ourselves and will judged accordingly by God. Anyone who surrenders his moral accountability to another has abandon the purpose of salvation as God has intended and described in the bible.

Modern Adventism and Rome have a close affinity in this area more than many would like to believe. So, as I have said in the past, "I have heard the dragon roar before, and it wasn't Rome."

Anyone connected with the "Brinsmead awakening" knows what I am talking about. I am sure you do, Tom.

Bill Sorensen

Bill, I hope I am a good Catholic. There are many good Americans who are Catholic. Some are fighting and dying right now for our country. You dishonor them and their sacrifice. Have you no shame? But again I challenge you to find in our catechism or code of canon law something to back your false assertion. If you cannot then I expect you to retract your lies. I will remind you that bearing false witness is a violation of the Decalogue.

"Theonomist and the over optimistic "liberal concept" of creating the "Kingdom now" without the "Not Yet" (Interesting both theological liberals and ultra-conservative theologians share the same commonality and danger) have always been dangerous."

Regards,
pat

Thanks, Pat. And I agree, we have as much or more to fear from the conservative right as we do from the left.

Neither do I apologize for my clear understanding of Rome and her dogma concerning the Pope and his authority over secular governments.

Apparent Fr. Jim is deluded on this point or wants to obscure the reality.

Neither have I said that no professing Catholic has been loyal to their commitment to their county. I did say, they do not know that loyalty to the constitution is contrary to their church's confession of faith.

Many Catholics are more loyal to Jesus than some professing Protestants. But in this, they are not in harmony with their church. A few false doctrines of Rome are easily defined.

Merit in the works of believers

Mary is immaculate

Baptizing babies with the idea original sin can be negated by such baptism. (Repentance and faith negate original sin. Babies can not repent nor believe.)

Infallibility of the church including the Pope when he acts as official head of the church.

All of these and many more are clear declarations of the Catholic church. Including the church's authority over the secular government.

Maybe Fr. Jim is just "blowing smoke", but he won't fool any serious scholar of church history of either the past or present.

And I don't see any need to "patronize" him just because he is in some sense a "guest" on an SDA fringe forum. I say, let him post what ever he pleases. And anyone else will do the same.

Another error of Rome is this, "Faith ought not be kept with heretics." Meaning, if you are not a Roman Catholic, you can lie to them and say anything you please and you are not culpable for your lies.

That is, any method to advance the church is acceptable and lies are OK if that is your goal. He can deny this all he wants. But facts are facts and history is too clear to be ignored as to how Catholicism has operated in the past and will continue to operate in the future when they can pull it off. And as I have said, Adventism is not far behind this theory.

Every false spirit will defend "the church" over and above the word of God.

Bill Sorensen

Bill, once again I ask you to state from our code of canon law or catechism where it says that Catholics cannot be loyal to the Constitution. Also please show me where those documents enjoin Catholics to lie to Protestants. If this is so important a part of our faith then it will be clearly found in those documents. If you cannot find such a statement then you need to retract your errors. You must be honest.

Being loyalty to Jesus is intrinsic to the Catholic faith. You would not know of Jesus if it was not for us. You're welcome.

You list several doctrines. You can find real information about them at www.catholic.com. But how is our belief in, for example, the Immaculate Conception evidence that we refuse to accept the authority of civil government?

I know my Church history very well. I have shown that in my responses to you. However, I have yet to see any of your allegedly immense knowledge in return. Don't patronize me, just show me from the code or catechism where we say what you claim we say. Show me those "facts" you speak about. It should be a breeze for an intellect such as yours.

The third attempt at posting a reply to you Fr.Jim.

>>If the "church" you mention in reference to Hitler is the Catholic Church then I take exception to that.

I meant the "German Protestant Church" not the "Barmen Confessing Church"... and anyone giving psychological support to the "German Social" plan while avoiding the reality of growing atrocities perceived to help accomplish the goals.

>>the Chinese Communist Party distrusts any authority other then itself.

Yes and this is typical of growing collectivist states and "Religious Institutions"...that is to censure opposing opinion. (not referring to the right of an orginization choosing personel when completly opposed to an organization)..but opposing/censuring it in all venues.

That said,

They desire to appoint a Catholic Bishop/Cardinal presently, as I recall, because of their fear of outside "authority." I suggest that is not totally irrational.

I think also that is their reasoning with the Dalai Lama.

Their historical reality is that "outside" authority within their country is dangerous.

regards,
pat

PS. The churches "anti-contraception" position has had a horrible outcome in my opinion in the Philippines. Children and poverty grow hand and hand like "rabbits."

Tom,

As you know, you described BOTH early (perfectionist) and late Brimsmead (Present Truth)...both before "Verdict Mag" and his then "agnosticism" for lack of a better term.

Come back to the "True Jesus" as witnessed to in PT Bob....

regards,
pat

PS. Perhaps back to "church and state issues" and "the Manhattan Declaration." Might be appropriate over on "the Numbers" strand? Perhaps I was part of the deviation from the original intent of the strand. They do get "indirectly linked" I guess however because they surround the EGW/SDA eschatalogical paradigm and where that came from and where it "potentially" leads.

Tom,

Your firsthand experiences at LLU and SMC/Southern are most valuble and appreciated by me.

Regards and Peace,
pat

Thank you, Frank7!

Pat, would you mind if George W. Bush had decided to appoint the head of the Adventist Church and your local pastor? I expect so. The Chinese government uses that as an excuse to persecute and control religious belief and believers. There are millions of Chinese Catholics who are loyal to the Bishop of Rome and would vehemently disagree with their government. They go to prison for it. I am sorry, but I don't buy the Communist Party line. The Dalai Lama is a good example. Tibet is not China and Tibetans are not Chinese. They were invaded by an outsider i.e. China. Some other things have resulted from artificial contraception-abortion, infertility, hyper-sexualization, misuse of women...all predicted by Paul VI. Of course NFP is licit and encouraged for those who wish to limit the number of children they have. Going back to China, you know of their one child policy, they force women to abort children. Not much choice for the woman. Another consideration is Europe. They are not having children and this is creating immense problems now and in the future. I don't want to debate contraception though, but I do believe that moral issues should be debated in society and that religion should be able to participate in the debate.

Frank, thank you. I hope that Bill will answer my question and provide the facts he mentioned.

Like when they promised Luther a safe conduct and then recended it before he could get home because he was a heretic?

***********************************************************************************************
Bill...

So you're basing what all Catholics are officially taught today on 500 year old anecdotal evidence?? Granted, the behavior you site is not defensible, as much of what went on in the Catholic/Protestant divide during the Reformation. But according to the entire picture you're drawing, I guess I better watch out that my still Catholic family, who have been inculcated to have no conscience toward their heretic son and sibling, doesn't rip me off and turn me over to the authorities as well.

Look, I'm telling you as a former Catholic, as a product of Catholic education, and as someone who still has Catholic family, that what you're saying is officially taught is something based in your own phantasm. I never experienced this at all...nor do I know of any of the thousands of Catholics with whom I've come in contact with over years and years ever learning such nonsense. What first hand knowledge can you bring to the table that compares?

BTW...I'll be enjoying Christmas Eve dinner with my family. Better watch my back! :)

Thanks...

Frank

The bible is a "closed book" when it comes to its own authority. It allows for no one to superceed its declarations.

Either it is all true, or none of it is viable as an authority.

Either it holds authority over the church and not visa verse, or it does not.

Rome claims authority over the bible. If so, then any exhortation from the word is subject to Rome's interpretation.

If they claim authority to change the Sabbath day, which is the moral law, then they can also lie, cheat, steal, murder and briefly, change any law or command or principle according to their own stated authority. And they can give any reason that suits them for so doing.

So, we go back to this primary issue. Is the church subject to the bible or not? For Rome, the answer is no. Rather, the bible is subject to the church.

This false idea opens the flood gates for any and all evil which is clearly apparent in history and will be shown again in the near future.

Everything else is academic. The spirit of Rome is evil and the fruit of it is manifest clearly in history and according to prophecy will manifest itself again when Rome regains her former influence in the world.

And the fact they claim the "Holy Spirit" leads the church is bogus. For the true Holy Spirit would never claim nor teach that God has abandon His authority to any church, past, present or future.

Like Satan, the Pope claims to be equal to God and is called, "Lord God, the Pope". Lord of heaven, Lord of earth and Lord of hell.

These are not obscure declarations. But can be verified easily for anyone who wants to know the truth of the matter.

I suspect, Fr Jim, knows this clearly since he has so many degrees in religion. If not, nothing I could quote or say would convince him otherwise anyway.

Do you have a name, Jim? or do you want to keep that obscure too?

I have stated nothing that is not "common knowledge" to any church history scholar. This is not my "opinion". It is clear historical facts. No viable church historian would even try to deny them. So, what is Jim's motive? I don't know.

It doesn't seem likely that he is ignorant of all the facts. Let him quote his own church confessions if he is so sure that I have misrepresented his church.

But remember, "the church" always has a right to define what it means. So, you may have to read considerable material before you can discern the meaning.

Apart from all that, in the end, it will be obvious who defends and follows the bible. All will necessarily see the issue before the end of time. God would never judge anyone as having the mark of the beast who had not sufficient light and understanding to see what it was and what the issues are.

As a Protestant, I can say, "keep the faith", and I mean subject yourself to the bible, not the church. Only the bible is infallible.

Bill Sorensen

First, to Bill Sorenson: It is incorrect to say "the Pope claims to be equal to God and is called, 'Lord God, the Pope.'" The only "source" to that claimed by certain writers is "a gloss on 'Extravagantes'"--a "gloss" is somebody's handwritten marginal note on one copy.

Second, it is incorrect to say that Pope Pius XII was a great rescuer of Jews while "Protestants" collaborated. In fact, in Denmark, the vocal opposition of the Lutheran church to the Nazi plan led to the rescue of almost every Danish Jew ... with no repercussions against the Lutheran leadership (Pius said nothing). In fact, it was Protestants who organized the "Confessing Church," not Catholics (Pius said nothing). In fact, Pope Pius XII was urged many times by American and British diplomats to denounce the Holocaust, but refused--he thought they were exaggerating and that he would play into Allied propaganda. The diplomatic correspondence on this matter was published decades ago. Fact is, we have lots of pictures of Catholic bishops giving the Nazi salute. And the Vatican helped many Nazis escape prosecution. "Mit Brenender Sorge" says nothing about Jews or Judaism, only about Nazi racial ideology in general.

But all of this gets away from the issue of the "Manhattan Declaration."

It has a ringing endorsement of religious liberty. I thought Adventists might appreciate that.

It says there are some moral issues that are rooted deeply in human nature, not merely in Biblical revelation. I thought the church that endorsed abolitionism and temperance movements might appreciate that.

Let's be honest. Sunday laws are on the minds of very few people in the US today. The threats to religious liberty come from those who would take that liberty away from Christian adoption agencies, Christian pharmacists and other health care workers, as well as those in the legal system with fears of Muslims and Sikhs. But we say little about them. And in other parts of the world Christians are under assault from both secularists (in Canada and Europe) and from Muslims and Hindus in India and the Middle East. We don't hear about these. It reminds me of how little we read in "Liberty" during the Cold War about persecution behind the Iron Curtain.

Bill Cork, we have pictures of French and British athletes giving the Nazi salute at the 1936 Olympics. And that proves...? The Catholic Church was NOT responsible for the holocaust nor was Pius XII. It did not collaborate with Hitler. This lie is simply vile bigotry. No one thought this way until the play The Deputy written by a German homosexual who hated the Church. But I agree that this is all off topic.'

I appreciate you correcting Bill on the false papal quote. I also very much agree with your defense of religious liberty. I think that is on target. We need more liberty not less.

>>> The Church existed before the Bible was canonized. The same Catholic Church you condemn canonized the Bible.

My understanding was that, at the time the OT and NT lists were agreed on, there was not a single hierachical organisation, but a range of competing and somewhat incompatible beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

"The Hebrew Bible probably was canonized in these three stages: the law canonized before the Exile, the prophets by the time of the Syrian persecution of the Jews, and the writings shortly after AD 70 (the fall of Jerusalem). About that time, early Christian writings began being accepted by Christians as "scripture." These events, taken together, may have caused the Jews to close their "canon." "

"Somewhat different lists of accepted works continued to develop in antiquity. In the fourth century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 39-to-46-book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in AD 393. "

I disagree with calling these somewhat autonomous groups of negotiators "the Church", unless one is also prepared to use the phrase to apply to all denominations existing today also.

/Bevin

Bevin
Roman Catholics are right when they point out that the Church existed before the scriptures. It was the Church that created the New Testament, not the other way round. What is debatable is the propriatory claims that today's ROMAN Catholic Church advance with respect to the early Christian church.

The Church that created the New Testament was more Greek than Roman but that is beside the point. The early Christian church eventually arrived at a consensus which was neither Greek nor Roman, but Catholic.

I think Protestants would have had an easier time acknowledging the primacy of the community, the Church, if the Roman constituancy had not so strongly pushed its propriatory claims to common history. And if it had, it would have been so much easier to resolve such thorny issues as the role of women and homosexuality. After all, if the Church was justified in establishing the criteria for the selection of normative scripture, it should have the authority to refine those criteria and exclude texts that are contrary to the values of the community of believers.

There are a lot of you's in that quote. Since Christ said it specifically to Peter its funny how the "Church" translated the admonition of feed my lambs, feed my sheep in terms of power and title and position.

(Latin Vicarius Christi).

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

So what is the promise made in Matthew 16?
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat016.htm#vrs18

Look at the commentary in blue in the middle section.
"As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: .........in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven."
Still no mention of the power going with the office. Next we learn that the Catholics hold the Jews and specifically the Hebrew language as offensive.
" Upon this rock, etc... The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."
So Christ had to lower himself since evidently he was forced to use the language of the Jews.
Next we learn that he can forgive sin itself and if its for money...even better.
"Loose on earth... The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted."
Still again no mention of hereditary title or passing any of this on to Peters successor.
Still there is that Rock that he will build his church on stuff in verse 18. So one general statement in verse 18 makes Peter pope. What does it make him when the same Christ 4 verses later commenting on the values this pope holds tells Peter,
"23 Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, you are a scandal unto me: because you savour not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men."
That's pretty clear too.
How ever will the Catholics comment on that? Lets see!
The last blue commentary section on the page says,

" but the Lord said to Peter, verse 23, Go behind me, Satan. These words may signify, Begone from me; but the holy Fathers expound them otherwise, that is, come after me, or follow me; and by these words the Lord would have Peter to follow him in his suffering....."

I tell you what. Lets say their commentary is right. All we have to do is substitute get thee behind me, with follow me and it should all be hunky dory. Lets try it!

23 Who turning, said to Peter: Follow me, Satan, you are a scandal unto me: because you savour not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men."

Oh, yeah! That's better. NOT. What do you expect from people who value authority, position, status and power more than all else?

Well, this is somewhat amazing. When Luther accused the Pope and the Catholic church as antichrist and then gave his reasons, no one challenged the reasons as being invalid.

The only challenge was if the reasons he gave were applicable and then how were the reasons interpreted.

This is still the issue. Why Fr Jim would deny the reasons and the clear statements of his church is really strange to me. History is clear and the Roman Church denies none of the accusations. In fact, they affirm the accusations in stronger and stronger language over time.

For this we are thankful, as it makes the discussion and debate easier to carry forward and draw some objective conclusions.

That the Catholic church claims authority over the bible is clear. This is what they presented to Luther and claimed they had preserved the bible and thus were superior to it.

Luther mocked their pretentions and countered, "John the Baptist pointed to Christ as the Messiah, and now, according to your reasoning, John the Baptist is superior to Christ and the authority over Him."

Obviously, just because the early church preserved and identified what was consistent and added to the cannon, does not make those who did so either superior or an authority over what they identified.

All this is history and anyone can research it for themselves. What is an enigma, is Fr. Jim apparently hopes to convolute what is clearly stated by his own church. The only confusion is his own reasoning.

In the end, if you are a Protestant, you must necessarily confess that God Himself has preserved the scriptures for our benefit that we can have an objective basis to determine His will. This is ultimatly a matter of faith.

People can "bicker" until the cows come home about how the bible was preserved and who preserved it. And who decided what was viable and what was not.

For a Protestant, it is faith in God who would give us a clear and definitive meaning of His truth.

As for the New Testament, it is still subject to the old. And the Old Testament is still the final authority over the new.

Moses and the prophets preceed Christ and Jesus Himself subjected Himself to "Moses and the prophets."

How else could we know Jesus was the Messiah? And as the Jews well knew, If Jesus changed anything, then Jesus was the antichrist of Dan. 7 who "would change times and laws".

The whole controversy between Jesus and His opposition was on this point. And He countered in Matt. 5, "Think not I am come to change the law.........I came to restore it to its original and true meaning."

So the battle raged between Jesus and the religious leaders of His day.

The final point being, no one is superior to Moses as he is the foundation of the true faith whether old or new testament.

Only if we abandon this principle can Rome have any argument to defend her false implications and ideas. The idea that the Spirit leads over and above past revelation is the false basis of Rome and every other spiritualistic concept that destroys the bible.

No doubt, this is why EGW continually pointed to the bible as the final authority over any and all spiritual revelations, including her own. This Rome would never agree to.

While truth is unfolding in its clarity, it is not "new" in the sense the word "new" is being used today in Christian circles. There is no "new" covenant as it is explained and described by dispensationalists.

"Babylon" is the viable word used in the bible to explain and identify modern Christanity, and Adventism is rapidly becoming part of it. Novices try to explain truth and state church doctrine and for the most part, have considerable influence in the SDA church today.

Rome simply bids her time.

Bill Sorensen

Bill, I think you will find the Catholic Church did dispute with Luther over that issue. I haven't denied anything since you really haven't said anything. In fact you have studiously avoided posting any facts to deny.

Let me give you some facts, some quotes, from your friend Luther in his Table Talk:

"I maintain that some Jew wrote it [the Book of James] who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any."

"Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. 'Faith justifies' and 'faith does not justify' contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor's hood and let him call me a fool."

"What shall we do with...the Jews?...set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them."

Nice guy.

Since you seem incapable of discovering what we teach in the catechism about the State I will give you a taste.

1897 "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."15

By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.

1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."17

1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will.

Pope St. Clement of Rome provides the Church's most ancient prayer for political authorities:18 "Grant to them, Lord, health, peace, concord, and stability, so that they may exercise without offense the sovereignty that you have given them. Master, heavenly King of the ages, you give glory, honor, and power over the things of earth to the sons of men. Direct, Lord, their counsel, following what is pleasing and acceptable in your sight, so that by exercising with devotion and in peace and gentleness the power that you have given to them, they may find favor with you."19

1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."20

So to sum up. The Church recognizes the legitimate role of civil government, that we are to be subject to it and loyal to it, that it is to serve the common good, that citizens should be able to choose their form of government, and that the church is to pray for civil authorities. In other words we teach the OPPOSITE of what you claim.

I await your retraction and apology Bill.

The Catholic writers are masters at double talk. As in the case of the issue of biblical authority and the church.

In the end, they would have us believe God has abandon His authority to the church. So that, whatever the church states is truth, and even God must necessarily agree with it.

I don't think Fr Jim is as ignorant as he lets on.

And I never said Luther had a perfect and clear preception of the bible and all that it teaches. Anyone who studies Luther knows he was not always consistent. Luther erred on more than a few things about the bible.

The issue is not whether he saw everything clearly about the bible. The issue was and is whether the bible is the final authority over all teaching and doctrine. Protestantism says, "yes" and Rome says "no".

Let Fr. Jim show where the church freely admits this reformation understanding of the church being subject to the bible.

Even the quotes on civil governments do not clearly define "all" that Rome has to say on the subject. If any civil government opposes Rome, according to Rome, they have the authority to eliminate it if and whenever possible.

Cut to the chase, Fr. Jim. And quit blowing smoke. The council of Trent says many good things. You have to read the definitive parts to get the truth of the matter.

Who changed the Sabbath day according to Rome, Fr Jim? And who took out the second commandment and split the 10th to preserve the number?

They accused Luther's teachings as being a novelty. And while in some respects, it could be shown to be true. But nothing is more of a "novelty" than Rome's false application of the bible and their false doctrines.

Who took the bible away from the people and killed anyone who had one? Rome.

People may have been born at night, Fr Jim. But for many, "it was not last night."

Only if you can take the bible away again, can you fool people into believing your false teaching. People may willingly embrace your false system. And many do. But no viable bible scholar would claim you follow scripture. Not even your own church.

Your final argument is that God has abandon His authority to the church. Now there is a real novelty.

Bill Sorensen

Bill,

Thanks, I support it! "Follow the Money", and if any institution does not accept federal money (tax exempt status excluded)they should be able to teach and practice what they choose.

Obviously, if in direct conflict with civil law they must be willing to bear the consequences while appealing to the appropriate court.

So..."Dangerous"...how so, with out a "conditioned" view of "the Religious Right." As I have stated in this strand, what I see is a Declaration more in line with the "Barmen Declaration" than something to fear in "church state" matters.

Regards,
pat

Bevin, the Church has always recognized civil governments including those that were hostile. If you remember for the first 300 years the Roman empire was hostile. Certainly the Church has always tried to use her influence in politics. So have most other religions. But establishing a theocracy was not in the cards. One must remember that in past centuries they were still working out relations between Church and State. We still are. This whole post is evidence of that fact. There were people who did not accept the teachings of the Apostles and the Church, we call them "heretics" lol. I doubt you would want to be a follower of Simon Magus or Arius for example. That doesn't mean there was not a Catholic Church. St. Ireneaus clearly appealed to the authority of the Catholic Church in combating early heresies.

Bill Cork, I agree with the statement and support the document.

Fr. Jim. You have said all that needs to be said in defense of what you believe. The fact you would consign me to some loony ben is typical of Catholic response to anyone who would oppose them. And your chuch would do it to, if it had the present power.

I assume you admit the church has the authority over the bible. Nothing else need be said.

For a Protestant, the bible has authority over the church.

Everything else is academic. So I won't bicker with you any futher. Only to say, Jesus assigned no such authority as you imply He did to Peter. The whole bible denies such a thing.

God has never abandon His authority to anyone. Period. Even Moses received his instructions from God and the ten commandments were written by God Himself.

This is where scripture begins. We, like the Jews, trust that God spoke through Moses, and no one superceeds his authority as recorded in the bible.

Your church does not acknowledge this and neither do you. Discussion closed. It is non-negotiable.

But I won't assign you to some loony ben as you would me if you could. I simply assume you are sincerely deluded.

Bill Sorensen

Bill:

You write "Fr. Jim. You have said all that needs to be said in defense of what you believe. The fact you would consign me to some loony ben is typical of Catholic response to anyone who would oppose them. And your chuch would do it to, if it had the present power."

You try to spin this as Catholic persecution. But I think whatever 'looniness' (your word) there is here is more an assessment of the content of your comments than Jim's Catholic prejudice. I am an Adventist and think much of what you have presented in your various postings on this site is extreme, unsubstantiated and at times reprehensible. It's your views that are taking flak, Bill. And somewhat your tone.

And your last sentence I quoted: "And your chuch would do it to, if it had the present power." [sic] comes back to your presently unsubstantiated assertion that persecution is Catholic policy. Fr. Jim has asked for you to substantiate this charge. It seems reasonable that you do so or retract. You have not done this and cannot, I think, unless some historic SDA eschatology is taken as normative. But that is what is really at issue here. You are simply making the assumption that your understanding of this is correct (perhaps buttressed but your understanding of Ellen White) which would help you feel - internally - that you hold the high ground.

But you cannot, responsibly, just appeal to contested authority without providing more rationale. You have consisently failed to do this. I would assume you wouldn't waste your time making comments here if you weren't interested in having others see things your way, unless you have some sort of martyr complex. So - make your case. You have not. How do you expect to gain 'market share' for your passionately held views when you operate like this?

I suspect the bottom-line reason is that you really cannot make a good case. But admitting that to yourself is too hard. However, I do not wish to presume. Show the 'cards' Bill.

Bill, you write: "That the Catholic church has always contended they have a right to control the state is so well known, that I could wonder that Fr. Jim would even deny it."

Well, if it is so well known then there would be an embarrassment of riches in information you could present to make your case. Not to mention the links Fr. Jim has provided. But you say: "We have both said all that needs to be said". But so far you have only made charges, not a case. Yet, to folks like me you assert "Apparently he has "won" some of you over to his view of Catholic Christanity. I say to those of you who are still strong Protestants......Keep the faith".

Please. If Fr. Jim had won me over I'd be Catholic, not Adventist. The fact I'm pushing back at you has nothing to do with protestant fidelity or me being some sort of laodicean SDA. It has everything to do with operating with argumentative integrity, not to mention humility and civility.

You also wrote "People want a wimpy sissy non-confrontational religion that requires no dynamic commitment". That you would fallaciously link 'wimpy' and 'sissy' with the word 'non-confrontational' speaks volumes to me. Yes there are times when truth must confront and not every dialog can be nice-nice all the time. But the combativeness you have exhibited too often on this site is, at minimum, unhelpful. And at maximum, demonstrates the sort of Adventistic hubris that I'm ashamed to see in the church.

Frank, Bill made some rather vile accusations. I challenged him to prove them and provide evidence. He could not and simply became even more intransigent, if that were possible. I have lost patience with him. He is not capable of intelligent discussion. If you look back I tried to be civil, but he simply evaded any request to show where he got his information, which is allegedly "so well known." I think I was fair in asking him to present his case. He is a bigot and they are rarely civil. I ran out of cheeks to turn.

Bill Cork, good question. Some people really hate Catholics. For my part I rejoice in the document. I believe we are in this together. When one religious voice is silenced the rest are in danger as well.

What do we mean by religous liberty? That means various things to various people and religious/non-religious organizations.

Does it mean religous liberty for the majority who subscribe to certain moral standards? The Declaration is not clear.

The point that should be made is that a God accepted morality is not produced by human legislative acts. The declaration is fine for a person who has a religious viewpoint on human life and marriage, but what of a non believer, that the declartion asks to join? Where do we get the notion that human life is "sacred," that is, holy, for example?

Where do we derive the idea of "dignified" marriage?

The declaration on its face simply assumes.

Fr. Jim
On an aside I want you to know how much I have seen you grow in civility and discussion during your time here.
When you first came on, you really ranted and called everyone who disagreed with you in the slightest a bigot.
You must have been hurt and lashing out, I dont know.
I must say I have noticed your temperance and restraint and I felt I must tell you how much I appreciate and respect your efforts.

Michael and Frank, thank you. When I first came on I was hurt and angry. I still get that way sometimes. I really think this Declaration is a good thing and can unite disparate churches. We all need to affirm our right to speak out in the public square. Religion does have something to contribute to the national discourse.

Fr.Jim and all,

Would I be correct in stating the RCC does not deem any nation has the "God given right" to disagree with the 'spiritual authority' of the RCC? (Honest and Sincere question)

How might that compromise the "1st Amendment" in "spirit?"

-------------

>>"So, here we have a statement of principles of religious liberty, agreed to by evangelical, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians. And we, instead of celebrating it, and thanking them, quibble and express fears of the unknown and debate points of history that some insist are indeed debatable. Why is that?"

Bill Cork,
As long as the "letter and spirit" of the document is abided by...I agree with you.

I do believe Bill S. is correct in saying that RCC "dialogue" representatives does not in any way receive the ultimate authority and agreement of the RCC unless specifically approved by their church "governing body." The ECT "dialogue" points that out. Optimism must always be tempered with "reality" although I do not see this document on the level with the ECT document.

regards,
pat

The Adventist church has taught from it's earliest days that one day the faithful Advent people would be persecuted for keeping the faith and refusing to obey civil authorities that are being egged on by religious forces to hold sacred Sunday as the day of worship.

What is interesting to me in this 'declaration' is how the signers claim that they will stand against all civil authorities that are demanding that they break God's laws.

I'd be willing to wager that most of them claim that the 10 commandments were "done away with" when Christ died.

Yet we see them claim the admonition that homosexuality is an abomination before God. Which means of course to them that God would have homosexuals stoned.

Hummmm.... I for one wonder what food will be on their Christmas table. There seems to be an amazing amount of Christians that have ham for their Christmas feast without any regard to the fact that God calls eating pork an abomination.

I am noticing from Christians a willingness to seek out the Levitical laws to back up their chosen favorite social agendas. The very laws that were nailed to the cross.

You are watching a turn to Dominionism that will eventually take over the Christian world. When the Secret Rapture doesn't happen then what those people have left is a turn to the other side of the coin. Post Tribulation and conquering the world for Jesus. That will be when our Adventist teaching about persecution regarding the law of God and the 4th commandment will take place and with a fury.

I submit that this Manhattan Declaration is just another bomb thrown at the blocks in the wall between church and state. The aim is to demolish and tear down that protective wall.

The church and state are really getting cozy and the church really likes the idea of being in full power. The "church" thinks it need the power of the state to change things but we surely know that only God can change the evil heart.

Fr. Jim,

21-24 are good. My point is that if we Protestants are "black sheep" and out of the flock, how could they have equal input in declaring God's will to the state as the "mother church."

You must acknowlege that not "respecting" an establishment of religion/church body is "problematic" to the RCC. Would you not?

As to the Declaration, I see no problem in pointing out the proper tension between "Church and State" that the Barman Declaration properly reckognized...I would sign it.

regards,
pat

There are also franchise Catholic State churches in Europe arent there. The history of the Anglican's would attest to that wouldnt it? No real change in form structure or belief, only in who they report to as the head of the church.
http://anglican.org/church/ChurchHistory.html
Of course they dont promote, disclose or advertise the real instigation of the Anglican church.
When Henry VIII wanted an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn, the Holy Roman Emperor at the time, Pope Clement VII refused the annulment. Eventually, Henry, although theologically a doctrinal Catholic, took the position of Supreme Head of the Church of England to ensure the annulment of his marriage. He was excommunicated by Pope Paul but why worry when you can be given absolution by yourself?

I think a fair and interesting question for Jim would be what he thinks of the separation of church and state that we all appreciate. With the history of the RCC controlling Europe, should it be that way again?
This quote is interesting.
"The State is sovereign, but still subject to God. The State is not God and cannot just do whatever it wants."
I'm not sure Ive ever heard of a state that claimed to be God, but I do know of a Church that claims to hold the power of God in all things. When the doctrine of a church says the state is still subject to God and we know who speaks for God on earth by their own admission what should we conclude about the preferred relationship the RCC would like with the state?

Pat, you don't have to believe me. It is right in our catechism. It gets rather annoying when conspiracy theories wreck such havoc. Adventism is so prone to demonize us.

Michael, if we control Europe then it is a mystery as to why they constantly act contrary to Catholic beliefs. Even in the past European Monarchs did not just bow to the will of the Pope. Such a view of history is simplistic at best. There have been States that claimed to be essentially divine. The USSR and Nazi Germany did not accept any higher authority. They demanded absolute obedience. Both persecuted Christians and the Church.

To argue that the State is supreme and answers to no one is unbiblical and dangerous. You've read Romans 13. God is sovereign of the universe is he not? Or does the State owe nothing to God? The Church has the obligation to proclaim the gospel to everyone, including the State. In the Declaration of Independence it says that our rights are natural rights given by the creator. They are not given by the State, but by God. This is the basis for our system of government. Religion is not just a matter for the private sphere. It plays a vital role in society. It is a check on the overwhelming power of the State. You have more to fear from a totalitarian State then from the Church.

Fr Jim,

>>> To argue that the State is supreme and answers to no one is unbiblical and dangerous.

The State is a bunch of people who have got together with enough force to make things happen. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

For one entity to "owe" another something, there must be a system that defines and enforces the obligation.

The State owes nothing to God. There is no system that defines or enforces some obligation.

People owe nothing to God. There is no system that defines or enforces some obligation.

As soon as you start using phrases like "Or does the State owe nothing to God?" I feel the threat of coercion.

You are welcome to try to get my State to do things - and I am allowed to try to stop you.

Historically organized religious groups

1. the RC Church being a big one,
2. Islamic variants being another,
3. the Church of England being another
4. evangelicals and fundamentalists being another

have done a lot of things to try to force States to do things that are profitable for them, or that they claim God wants.

Similarly other groups have grabbed control of States - dictators and large groups with agendas - and have imposed their will.

In all cases, only either (a) outside force, or (b) internal uprisings of large numbers of contrary-minded people are needed to break the self-serving habits of the controllers.

It is noticable that many religious people try to force their own beliefs on others. Rules against selling things on Sundays, using birth control pills, and saying that the planets go round the sun come to mind.

/Bevin

What I am referring to F. Jim are “moral views” that may be held by the U.S. Catholic Bishops that others may feel do not express properly how these “moral absolutes” are to be attained. The reality is often in the fine print.

I would refer to the "moral absolutes" of the “Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy of the
U.S. Catholic Bishops,1986” as well as the following quote from "Renewing the Earth, a statement by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops delivered on November 14, 1991."

"A just and sustainable society and world are not an optional ideal, but a moral and practical necessity. Without justice, a sustainable economy will be beyond reach. Without an ecologically responsible world economy, justice will be unachievable. To accomplish either is an enormous task; together they seem overwhelming. But 'all things are possible' to those who hope in God (Mk 10:27). Hope is the virtue at the heart of a Christian environmental ethic....We can proceed with hope because, as at the dawn of creation, so today the Holy Spirit breathes new life into all earth's creatures. Today, we pray with new conviction and concern for all God's creation: Send forth thy Spirit, Lord and renew the face of the earth."

I am simply saying that if someone disagrees on the best manner to achieve the above goals he should not be deemed “immoral” for not following the perceived social policy methodology of the RCC.

My point has simply been that those religious bodies/individuals who oppose on “moral grounds” RCC teachings have the legitimate right under God and the U.S. Constitution.

I am not debating on the substance of your catechism above but the “details” of morality and “common good” and what that potentially means in achieving it. At the present time it IS NOT a “mature issue.”

You see, while your Bishops goal’s above are worthy, I don’t see them being fulfilled in the present age and there will be scapegoats for failure of unrealized hyper expectations were they adopted as acheivable in a "church state" co-op. I do not see this as a "planned conspiracy" but "ideal goals" going awry. Basically they are looking for a "perfectable 'new creation' society" in the "now" without fully dealing with the human condition and it's perfectability in the present age.

Make sense? I don't want to beat this horse to death because I agree with the present well defined "Declaration."

Regards and shalom,
pat

Pat, in certain moral issues it is true that the manner of achieving the moral end is debatable. Although one many not use evil means to attain good ends. Also sometimes a politician will claim that he personally opposes something, but ends up voting for it because of other good things in the bill. Often this is just for home consumption. People who disagree with the Church can, and often do, work for what they think is right. Usually they are the ones who attack the Church viciously and try to silence us with the "separation" argument. Of course we aim for an ideal, but we believe in original sin and know it is unattainable in this world. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. That is also found in the catechism.

Bevin, so you would argue that we the creatures have no obligation to obey the Creator? You have read what happened with Adam and Eve? Your insistence on "system" seems to be a holdover from a conspiracy mentality. Our Constitutional "system" presupposes natural law. You might want to bone up on some basic philosophy here. By founders I mean the founders of the American system of government. Isn't that what you are talking about?

The Pope has an "army" of 100 men. No Pope in history ever had a large enough army to impose his will on Europe and the world. Of course the Popes also were involved in government. In many places after Rome fell they were the only vestige of government left. Currently the Vatican City State is about 110 acres in size.

No religious group now has any military power to impose its will, other then perhaps Islam. As I am not Muslim you will have to take up the issue with them. Please do. However, States are very quick to impose their will by force.

The Church believes that your conscience should be informed. If your conscience tells you that Jews are sub-human and should be eliminated do you have the right to implement that? Is it wrong for others to force you to stop? We all are "forced" to obey some laws. You are forced not to rob banks, even if you think there is nothing wrong with it. Someones moral ideas are going to become law. Some of those laws you favor and impose on me. It sounds like you just don't want competition. We have just as much right to put forward our ideas as you do.

Sometimes conscience is wrong. We do believe in objective truth. We have reasons why we teach that killing babies is wrong. That is based on the dignity and value of the human person. We teach artificial birth control is wrong, have you ever really read humanae vitae? But it is available everywhere. We can't stop any of it. But has it actually worked? No, it hasn't done what it promised has it?

We don't claim the world is 6000 years old. Please do not conflate all religions and pretend they are all the same. Catholics are not fundamentalist Baptists. We don't require a 10% tithe and I expect you make much more then I do. We also don't object to coffee. If you don't like what the Seventh Day Adventist Church teaches then don't join it. Same goes with being Catholic.

I am talking about the Catholic Church, so I capitalize it. Just as I did in the last paragraph when referring to the SDA Church. Is my English grammar incorrect? Do you want to talk about ecclesiology? I think that is another topic.

>>> A law is just only if it protects human life, Pope Benedict XVI said

Unfortunately the world is more complex than this. It is quite possible to be in a situation where saving one life will kill many more.

The cost of saving the life uses resources that could also be used to improve the lives of others.

The inability of the Roman Catholic Church to cope with this
simple fact is at the bottom of a lot of their foolishness.

>>> We do believe in objective truth. We have reasons why we teach that killing babies is wrong.

And I have reasons why it is not always wrong. Your subjective belief in objective truth may motivate your behaviour, but I'm going to fight against your foolishness restricting others lives.

/Bevin

Jim
Reguarding Politics and religion or more specifically the RCC.
What are your feelings/insights on the fact that the RCC is the only religion to which the US appoints an ambassador?
What does this say about the role the RCC sees for itself in politics? You do realise they had the option to refuse an official ambassador dont you?
Thanks

It seems rather ludicrous to argue about whether any religious beliefs approve the killing of babies when, if we believe the Hebrew Bible stories, God ordered genocide of entire tribes and families, which presumably, also had infants, as the Israelites at that time, similar to most cultures, had rather large families, thanks to polygamy.

Padre

Your claim that In fact the Church stands for freedom of conscience .... is false.

Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#'s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra:

From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, namely, that 'liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society.' But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition. Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.

Vatican II speaks to Religious Liberty, not to be confused with freedom of conscience which is explicitly condemned by your church.

keafan, as usual you don't read the documents in context. Most anti-Catholics don't. You will notice Elaine does the same with the Bible. For example Pius IX began his papacy as a liberal, in what liberal meant in those days, and was betrayed by them. In his day the State was attacking the Church much as had happened in the French Revolution. Keep that in mind. The Church remembered all that talk of "liberty" that led to "off with their heads." There was also the memory of the sacking of Rome by Frederick.

Pius regarded the remnants of the Papal States as essential to the freedom of the Church from State control. Was he completely wrong? Subsequent history would say no. The idea of complete separation of Church and State is a relatively new concept. It makes sense that the Church would be slow to accommodate it, especially since some of its consequences were quite negative for Christians. Did the use of force that Pius mentions end with the secularism of the State? Nope. Also in that encyclical he defends natural law and opposes the overweening power of the State that knows no bounds. Our founding fathers would not find that idea foreign. He was also responding to the State suppression and destruction of Catholic Religious orders. In addition he was protesting the secular laws that ended any respect for the Sabbath, thereby forcing workers to work without let up.

Consider this quote: "But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?" Was he wrong? No, he was right on the money.

How about this? "Moreover, not content with removing religion from public society, they wish to banish it also from private families. For, teaching and professing the most fatal error of "Communism and Socialism," they assert that "domestic society or the family derives the whole principle of its existence from the civil law alone; and, consequently, that on civil law alone depend all rights of parents over their children, and especially that of providing for education." Isn't that what is happening? The State now feels free to interfere with your family and educated your children to believe things you don't agree with. That civil law, legal positivism, is the only law. Therefore, the State can do what it wishes and no moral law can say otherwise. In Pius' day the State was closing Catholic schools and forbidding religious education. The State was also seizing the Church's property.

How about this quote? "For they are not ashamed of affirming "that the Church's laws do not bind in conscience unless when they are promulgated by the civil power; that acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, referring to religion and the Church, need the civil power's sanction and approbation, or at least its consent..." So the State was claiming the power to control what the Church believed and taught. The State controlled the Church and regulated it. Wouldn't you object to that too?

Essentially the Pope was responding to the attacks of anti-clerical governments who were persecuting the Church. When people are attacked they react defensively. Not everything that Pius condemned would you laud as wonderful. What was called "liberty of conscience" was often a smokescreen used by secular governments to end opposition, seize power, take property, control families, and subvert the Catholic faith. I suggest you read the whole document and in the context of its time.

Fr Jim, you continuously refer to "The Church" even when discussing times when there were clearly multiple competing denominations.

The papal quotes do also

"The Pope believed that the two societies were essential to each other and should cooperate: "Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them.""

There are multiple religions, each containing multiple denominations, and the attempt by any one denomination to claim it is the authority over 'the religious society'" is always seen as a threat by the others.

You don't like the traditional SDA position that the RC Church is the fallen woman - of course you don't (and I don't agree that it is, I think ALL organized religion is).

But you must understand that the converse of that is that the other denominations don't like the RC Church claiming that it, and it alone, is The Church. Every time you refer to the RC Church as "The Church" other denominations feel threatened. If you don't intend the threat, use "The RC Church" or "My Church", or "All Churches".

Your continuous use of this phrase is one reason why people think that the RC Church is trying to gain control over the other denominations - and to inhibit freedom of conscience.

/Bevin

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/pope-africa-condoms-aids

"The pontiff said condoms were not the answer to the continent's fight against HIV and Aids and could make the problem worse."

This was a VERY unfortunate sound-bite. It will kill Africans.

/Bevin

Bevin, other then quoting a sound bite you did not respond at all to what I wrote. Instead you focus on grammar rules of capitalization. How absurd. If you are not interested in dealing with the underlying issues then say so. Is killing Africans wrong? You say so, but that is only a subjective opinion. In fact you say killing babies is actually not always a bad thing and might even be good. Maybe if more Africans die then that will reduce the worlds overpopulation. So shouldn't you actually be in favor of it? I think you are just dodging the real issue because you have backed yourself into a corner. You are just the secular version of Bill S.

I must take exception to the attacks by Bevin on the pro-life position of the Catholic church. First, I must note he also takes exception to Adventist teachings on such topics as creation, tithe, etc. So it is clear he speaks for himself, not for the denomination.

I think we must commend the Catholic church for its consistent pro-life position, which has developed over the past half century. Yes, there were times when the Catholic church defended and even enacted the death penalty. Today, it asks governments to refrain, arguing that there are other ways to keep society safe. But its argument is not based merely on pragmatics. John Paul II, for example, started with the Biblical example of Cain, the first murder; God not only forbade the death penalty, but put a mark on him lest someone kill him by accident.

Catholic theology, in this and other life issues, reasons not from philosophy, but from the Bible's teaching about creation. Creation theology is more than a matter of when and how God created the world--it also entails the questions of the purpose and meaning of creation. The Creation story tells us that the material world is good--man is not a spirit trapped in matter, but is human only as a body which has been animated by the breath of God. The human being has meaning not because of its functionality or its potentiality but because of what we are as persons created by God. Because of this, nothing can take way from that value--not age, not crippling diseases, and not the actions we do. Human life is thus to be respected and valued at all moments, from conception until natural death.

Humanity is also male and female, created as such. Sexual union is not a consequence of the fall, but is part of what God made us to be from the moment of creation. He gave us to each other, male and female, a relationship referred to as being help mates to one another. It is a union of opposites, a union in which each person gives themselves fully to the other, holding nothing back; God has blessed this union with fruitfulness and bound it by permanence.

These Catholic teachings are not responsible for suffering. Rather, were we to follow them suffering would be much less. They are not Catholic teachings--they are creation ordinances, like the Sabbath. And like the Sabbath, we violate them to our own detriment. But like the Sabbath, human reason thinks it knows better. Human reason, in the name of "freedom," says we don't need that other person, or that we can use that other person, or that we can limit how much of ourselves we give to that other person, or that we can solve the problems associated with the weakness of human personhood by technological fixes that, in the end, merely dehumanize.

These aren't areas where we should be attacking Catholics or seeking pretended differences. These are areas where we should be humbly thanking them for showing us areas where perhaps our own creation theology has been short-sighted.

Padre

You made accusations that take a great deal of explanation. That is a typical tactic.

You made several assertions which are false. For instance, the assertion about your church supporting "freedom of conscience".

I responded with material from a pope which refuted your claim. Instead of showing me where there is a more recent affirmation of your church which applauds "freedom of conscience" I will stick to the evidence that shows your claim to be false. I don't need twenty paragraphs of rhetoric from a priest. One quote from a vatican council or papal encyclical will do.

It is the one American prejudice that just won't go away.

It is not a prejudice, but a valid conclusion based on centuries of church abuse in civil affairs. Personally, I don't believe that Vatican II changed much of the superiority the church claims on the basis of their self-made claims that they are the one true church of christ (God).

Its the same with the natural law garbage you peddle. To you, natural law includes divine revelation which the founding document of our country denies. Its "We the People". Not "We the People, under submission to X Church". The church has HISTORICALLY been against democracy. Did Vatican II ease some of the concerns? To some, yes. To me, and I believe a majority of Americans (even the catholic americans) it did not.

PS... I didn't get anything from wikipedia.

However, many Catholics realize that they should participate in the political process in the light of their faith.

I agree. Election day should be a holiday or a weekend day. Conservatives tend to be against making the federal election a holiday because poor working people would have more opportunity to vote. I would prefer that it be a requirement to vote like Australia. Changing the subject to the actions of individual citizens is irrelevant, IMO. I think you will notice that, even though you are a priest, I normally refer to "your church", not yourself. There is a tremendous gap between the actions, ethics, history, and authority of "your church" and your personal actions, ethics, history, and authority.

Many of us have served our country in uniform. Some at the cost of their lives. They did so as good Catholics and Americans. Your ramblings insult them.

Playing the victim card is ridiculous. Individual catholics shouldn't care less what anybody writes on an SDA forum about the laws, philosophy, history, and interference of the RCC leaders in civil government today.

As far as the appeal to emotions over serving in uniform? Our military today is voluntary. I support their choice to fight for the economic security of our country just as much as I support the risk taken by those who choose to work the coal mines instead of going to the middle east to secure the oil fields. They are both dangerous jobs normally chosen by those with limited opportunities in the civil work world due to lack of education, lack of money to get an education, poverty due to poor decisions by their parents, or being a slacker in HS. Those that choose employment by the armed forces get tax free income, housing, food, clothing, exotic travel (haven't you seen the ads?), learn marketable job skills, socialized medicine, socialized housing benefits, socialized education benefits, etc. Hey, I have a nephew currently in the army. No college. Was working construction. Got married. Wife got pregnant. No medical insurance. Uh-Oh. Off to war he went. Personally, I prefer the draft. No college deferments. We would have less military "events". Currently, its more like a perpetual jobs program.

>>> Instead you focus on grammar rules of capitalization. How absurd.

I am shining a light on your consistent implied and explicit claims that the Roman Catholic denomination is the one real Church, and all the others are errant children which should return to being under the Roman Catholic thumb.

>>> If you are not interested in dealing with the underlying issues then say so. Is killing Africans wrong? You say so, but that is only a subjective opinion.

People like yourself who seek certainty in axioms, theology, history, and gut feel don't understand people like me who live every day with uncertainty and who have an intense dislike for false claims of certainty.

Killing anyone is sometimes right and sometimes wrong - in as far as anything is "right" and "wrong".

But part of the Roman Catholic on position on 'life' is simply irrational - and is only there because they can't admit that they have screwed up the theology of sex and life for over one thousand years.

(1) It says that you should spend vast amounts of money to save one life, rather than being clever about how you spend the money and save many more than one life.

(2) It says that it is immoral for a married couple to have sexual intercourse with a piece of rubber stopping conception, but it is moral to have sexual intercourse when you think the wife might not be fertile.

(3) It says that a brainless fetus should be carried to term, risking the mother's life and the families finances.

/Bevin

Bevin, I am going to help you out here. These are the pertinent rules of English grammar on capitalization:

1. Capitalize a proper noun.

2. Capitalize words derived from proper nouns.

From http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/capital.asp

You can be certain that those rules are correct. You can also be certain that there are actions that are intrinsically and objectively evil. See Auschwitz.

None of the things you mentioned are wrong if you believe that nothing is really wrong. It just depends on your point of view.

I am not going to write an essay in response. I have given you plenty to think about if you want to think. But nice guy that I am I will give you some links that gives some of the Catholic perspective on life.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_...

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_...

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

That will keep you busy for awhile.

There is a vast difference between a system that holds some truth in the framework of error, vs. the system that holds some error in the framework of truth.

The Roman Catholic religion is a total framework of error that embraces some truth.

While Protestantism holds the framework of truth while still holding some error.

Namely, when Rome claims authority over the bible, in the end, it can not defend truth. Only its own self-appointed authority. And when challenged by the bible, must eventually confess it is not subject to it.

On the other hand, when Protestantism (historical) claims subjection to the bible, it may still hold some error. But in the end, all error will be eliminated as long as the framework of truth is adhered to.

So, for a historical Protestant, a viable confession of faith is this. The bible is infallible.

For Rome. Just the opposite. The church is infallible.

These two positions are mutually exclusive.

The fact is, because historic Adventism has pointed out that loyalty to the bible includes the 7th day Sabbath, many Protestants have now abandon the bible and contend for a "spirit ethic" in harmony with Rome's spirituality.

And in fact, this theory is "the mark of the beast" and the Sabbath/Sunday issue is simply the framework to expose this reality.

Those of us who understand the issue are aware that many if not most present confessing SDA's will abandon the bible Sabbath because many have already begun to adopted a "spirit ethic" as in the ordaining women as bishops and elders. Clearly contrary to the bible.

Now in Rome's position. She can move anywhere she wants as long as it will advance the church and the church's authority.

This is so obvious in history, and even evident in today's political/religious scenario as Rome moves here and there on any and every issue like good politicians do.

They can "change" any doctrine and/or teaching except one. And that is, The Roman Catholic church is infallible even as it moves from one position to another. And then back again if necessary. Rome isn't called "Babylon" by historical Protestants for no reason.

When Luther was told, "The Pope interprets the scripture." He responded, "He may interpret it, but he is not above it."

This may seem like a small difference to some. But implications are massive in their meaning and application.

Bill Sorensen

Bill Cork,

I didn't hear back regarding Gen.9:6...ok.

May I say that often an "over-realized" eschatology of the "new creation" and the meaning of the cross and "the now" leads to some ideas that may seem to be good but are ideas that should remain in the "not yet."

This particular issue(capital punishment)is a "tension" in which I believe the church is "imposing" on the legitimate power of the state's use of "the sword" that needs to remain in the present order.

regards,
pat

"Bill, I think any church including the SDA is subject to this error. Having an "alternate" form of authority rather than scripture can create in "practice" if not confession a situation where one is "not subject to it" but it's own interpretation.

I do not disagree with the comment but recognize we SDA's have likely also been guilty. EGW and many interpreters can be useful but none is to have final authority over scripture IF one claims to be Protestant. With intellectual honesty can we honestly say we have not done that in practice as a church? I think of people defrocked from the ministry and teaching over IJ and 1844 specifically. Any church has the right to remove ministers but should be aware God can also remove them from His service."

regards,
pat

And you know I agree, Pat.

I mentioned the ordaining of women as an example.

None the less, any church, including Rome has a right to define what they believe and then expect that anyone who wants to join their fellowship should conform to their stated confession of faith.

If not, they should leave of their own accord, or be dis-fellowshiped if the church chooses this option.

"Freedom of religion" does not mean you are free to join a church and then attack their confession of faith, and when disciplined, claim you have "freedom of religion" to say and teach what ever you please.

So, if 1844 and the IJ is part of the churches statement of faith, and you don't believe it, you must either move on or, expect to be disciplined.

If Rome claims authority over the bible as a confession of faith, people must either agree or move on. As in the case of the Protestant reformation, they moved on. Some were disfellowshiped and some simply chose to leave.

Rome of course, put to death any who opposed her as a civil and moral duty. This is also part of her confession.

How we view "religious freedom" is important. You are free to join any church you want, or start you own if you can. This is the US statement of what it means.

I assume you agree with as well.

Bill Sorensen

Chris,

>>"Protestant! What a strange negative word that we identify with. Is it just my right brain?"
-------
Chris, I profess positively to be first a Christian, then a Protestant, then a SDA.It is a "positive statement" of belief. It states indirectly what constitutes beliefs one is "for" and "against."

It indeed says much of my "spiritual mission and beliefs."

I like this specific document that acknowleges the proper role/tension of church and state.

regards,
pat

Bevin,

How about for Protestants Luther and Calvin there was no other final authority we should/need appeal to than scripture for matters of "faith and practice."

I think all true Protestants must believe this.

regards,
pat

After this I will suggest we get closer to the “Declared Topic” but The arguments are still the same today…

http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/books/institutes/

Calvin’s Institutes Book 1, Chapter VII, para.1 (Chapters VI-X deal with scripture)

1.Scripture has its authority from God, not from the church
Before proceeding farther, it seems proper to make some observations on the authority of Scripture, in order that our minds may not only be prepared to receive it with reverence, but be divested of all doubt. When that which professes to be the Word of God is acknowledged to be so, no person, unless devoid of common sense and the feelings of a man, will have the desperate hardihood to refuse credit to the speaker. But since no daily responses are given from heaven, and the Scriptures are the only records in which God has been pleased to consign his truth to perpetual remembrance, the full authority which they ought to possess with the faithful is not recognised, unless they are believed to have come from heaven, as directly as if God had been heard giving utterance to them. This subject well deserves to be treated more at large, and pondered more accurately. But my readers will pardon me for having more regard to what my plan admits than to what the extent of this topic requires.
A most pernicious error has very generally prevailed; viz.,that Scripture is of importance only in so far as conceded to it by the suffrage of the Church; as if the eternal and inviolable truth of God could depend on the will of men. With great insult to the Holy Spirit, it is asked, who can assure us that the Scriptures proceeded from God; who guarantee that they have come down safe and unimpaired to our times; who persuade us that this book is to be received with reverence, and that one expunged from the list, did not the Church regulate all these things with certainty? On the determination of the Church, therefore, it is said, depend both the reverence which is due to Scripture, and the books which are to be admitted into the canon. Thus profane men, seeking, under the pretext of the Church, to introduce unbridled tyranny, care not in what absurdities they entangle themselves and others, provided they extort from the simple this one acknowledgement, viz., that there is nothing which the Church cannot do. But what is to become of miserable consciences in quest of some solid assurance of eternal life, if all the promises with regard to it have no better support than man's judgement? On being told so, will they cease to doubt and tremble? On the other hand, to what jeers of the wicked is our faith subjected - into how great suspicion is it brought with all, if believed to have only a precarious authority lent to it by the goodwill of men?

Interesting Reading for the Protestant view/meaning of Sola Scriptura

Regards,
pat

Bill,

"The time frame leading up to 1844 is non-negotiable for true bible Adventism. The events concluded are clearly stated in a biblical framework."

Humility is needed in throwing rocks at others using extrabiblical authority by SDA's when in practice we have done this Bill.

If it were not for EGW's and Uriah Smith's understanding of 1844, Glacier View would not have occured and Des Ford would be a retired appreciated minister of the SDA church.

It is not because of prejudice against truth EITHER that no one else denominationaly see's 1844, IJ, and Christ in HP instead of MHP till 1844, Bill.

It is because it is exegetically NOT THERE!

I don't desire to change this strand to an EGW discussion. I appreciate many things she wrote. But she erred on this issue as has "our church."

On things we agree in principle, not necessarily methodology. This is one area in which we do not agree at all.

Also Peabody's article is taken from his understanding of things written by EGW. It is Not by explicit biblical interpretation which is simply not that precise so as to fear the above document or it's participants.

regards,
pat

Bill,

My last comment as regards 1844 etc.

Please have those who attempted an apologetic for our 2300 day IJ doctrine write a footnoted 6-10 page synopsis of our doctrine and submit it to WTJ, a "conservative" theological journal for feedback and evaluation that the world may know our doctrine and... it's error. Humbly present it as our Church's unique gift to Christendom.

http://www.wts.edu/resources/wtj.html

It will not pass legitimate out of "inhouse" exegesis my friend.

regards,
pat

It will not pass legitimate out of "inhouse" exegesis my friend.

regards,
pat

That would be an interesting principal to see if you could show from scripture. Something along the lines of the Samaritans validating Jewish theology thing possibly?

Also, inherent in the line of thought is the might makes right philosophy where whoever can dig up the most experts wins.
I've seen Alex try and do it with you on evolution or business subjects Pat. Doesn't seem to be a suffecient measurement of anything to me.
Further, just like evolution, there is no way of proving beyond a doubt what God is doing right now anyway.

Pat,
Do we keep our beliefs secret? Are you saying other Christians dont know what we believe?

Shall we make also a paper as you suggest on the Sabbath and let them comment on that? And when they say they still believe in worshipping on Sunday will you then go along with their honest and sincere Christian opinions and start worshipping on Sunday?

There is value in what you propose but I suggest that it is not as empirical or neutral as you propose. Perhaps the greatest lesson would not be learned by their reviews but by how you would react and adjust to them should they disagree with you.

Perhaps I am from a different part of the country or perhaps you use paranoia as hyperbole to make your point, but I know no one like that.

Pat, you say, "Nobody believes it". But as Michael points out, what you mean, is "Nobody believes it that consider credible." In which case, your conclusion is subjective and not objective.

The fact is thousands believe it and many are being converted to bible Adventism and we don't need EGW to prove it.

The bible speaks for itself. As Michael said, "Just because thousands of Christians do not 'believe' the Sabbath, doesn't make them right."

If you rejected the Sabbath, and I assume you have not, you, like many others would use the same argument and say, "Well, why don't you submit your evidence of the bible Sabbath to a group of scholars and see why they don't accept it?"

Have seen the book "From Sabbath to Lord's Day?" It is edited by Carson and many "scholars" are quoted like Lincoln and several others who oppose our view of the Sabbath. Even Bacchiocchi (spelling?) is quoted and considered in their evaluation. They still don't believe it. So what?

Again, the bible speaks for itself. The 3 angels message is tied to 1844 and "the hour of his judgment is come."

EGW's presentation is true and is defensible by the bible. And the bible only. When you see and understand the dynamic of the message, you will see why, how, and the necessity for its timing and application.

It is the only explanation that can and will prepare people for the coming of the Christ of the bible. Satan will personate Christ. And those who reject and/or abandon the message will surely receive him as their savior.

Notice this, the Sabbath was not discovered nor the dynamic of its meaning until the true understanding of the cleansing of the sanctuary was discerned. Just as the "Church of God" has given up the Sabbath, so will the Seventh day Baptists. And any other Sabbath keeping denomination.

Moral perfection is the dynamic of the 1844 judgment and includes not only the Sabbath, but "every jot and tittle of the word of God." When the SDA church ordained women, they abandon the bible and began the process of the early church of establishing a "spirit ethic" in place of the bible.

This is the "mark of the beast" reflected not on in Catholicism, but every false religion and mis-understanding in the Christian communities in the world today.

We need no "authorites" to tell us what the bible teaches. The Holy Spirit creates the Christian community by way of the bible, and every means of grace including churches, have no viable function except as they subscribe to this truth.

EGW supported this Protestant confession of faith and subjected herself and her teaching to the same.

Bill Sorensen

IOW what does one win if he gets the IJ question right? Translated?

Posted by: Michael | 19 December 2009 at 11:11

If they appropriate it in its biblical context, the answer is "yes".

This is no trite issue. Nor is it simply academic. If and when God reveals His will in the bible by any means of grace He has chosen, we are not free to quibble and doubt and scorn His message.

Noah preached a flood to come. The world mocked his solemn appeals and final destruction was the result.

Ignorance is no excuse when truth is available and presented in a biblical framework. You hope to excuse yourself by not only attacking the message and messenger, but you attack the bible as well.

Adventism is built on the bible, not EGW. But if you shift the emphasis to EGW, then you feel free to reject the message as some man made idea.

On these liberal forums and discussions, you "unbelievers" receive massive doses of affirmation from each other and all you do is confirm yourselves in unbelief. But it won't get you by the judgment nor excuse your ignorance.

Bill Sorensen

Michael,

"IOW what does one win if he gets the IJ question right?"

What does one win if they get Sabbath, Conditional Immortality, Creation, Pre-Millennial return of Christ or Atonement correct? Nothing if doctrine means nothing as relates to God's will for us.

Learning requires open discussion in open theological forums...not just "inhouse naval" searching. Not all is bad and not all is without potential for being better.

So, I guess none of the above matter...so why worry and have our conversation?

regards,
pat

"So you believe the question of the IJ is a salvational issue?"

The way one views the Adventist "traditional" version of IJ relates to salvational issues just as much as the Sabbath. Because, it relates to how we view Grace-Peace-assurance, Atonement, perfectionism and ...obedience.

Has nothing to do with "dancing on a pin." Try telling the 28 Fundamentals committee that.

You know, you can say Jesus loves me this I know for the bible tells me so. And this is true "assuming scripture is correct" and it's "conditionals."

So no need to bother with the 28?
OK?

The devil is a master at taking away the intensity of truth. "I'm OK, You're OK" suits him just fine.

I believe EGW when she expresses her concern that the final deception is universalism. If so, then no doubt the law and judgment must be "dumb down" to some low requirement that has little definition if any.

Eventually, it will equate to "civil righteousness" meaning, if you are a loyal patriot you are ipso facto a born again Christian. Simular to the Jews who had developed this mentality by the time Jesus came.

The Sermon on the Mount attacks this superfical "righteousness" the pharisees had developed for themselves.

Spiritualism and a "spirit ethic" are one and the same thing. But Spiritualism has no objective form to determine good and evil.

Liberals attack the bible on many levels. Especially concerning any reference to judgment and an objective standard that determines an individuals eternal destiny.

Any so-called "gospel" that undermines a judgment according to works is simply a false gospel.

Many religious leaders in the SDA church today are undermining the true bible dynamic of the final judgment.

An interesting side note. Every movement God has ordained in the past to represent Himself and His government has ended up commiting the unpardonable sin as a denomination.

Adventism is presently in the process of this sin and are to spiritually blind to see it or know it. When a movement can only see the sins of others and not see itself, it is doomed to complete and final failure.

As I have said, "unconditional election" for a movement makes it totally and utterly impossible for the leaders of the movement to repent. This is the condition of Adventism today.

All the hype by Jan Paulsen with his "let's talk" is just political drivel. Nothing about repentance, revival and reformation. Like many leaders, he is simply a politician with no spiritual insight.

They don't discipline themselves individually, nor corporately. No accountability within the system, especially on spiritual matters.

A person can claim to believe in the traditional teaching of the IJ, and never apply a single spiritual application to what is happening today.

In the end, the church is going to get a lot smaller before it can get larger. God has a way of exposing apostates so honest bible believing Christians can clearly evaluate who is defending the true faith. Until then, we have a mass of Babylon confusion with leaders who "worship, they know not what."

Bill Sorensen

Mike, do you really understand what unmerited grace is about?

Regards,
Pat

Is that on the entrance exam to heaven too? ;)

I have not switched anything. I debated from the same viewpoint throughout, though I thought we were speaking of our own viewpoints. When you bring the church into it and infer what THEY think may be salvic changes the subject significantly.

You worry about issues that seperate us from other churches and yet I have never heard you complain of our belief in the state of the dead and the fact we are the only ones who believe that, or suggested that a paper be written for review of other churches theologians to see if that can pass muster.
Shall we use the same proposals for all differences or only the IJ?

Pat
I dont care if one does as you suggest. I dont believe what I believe because of what someone else says anyway. I think you dont either.

Let them critique away. The answer is not the password to the pearly gates.

Pat
I dont believe he didn't and I dont believe he did. I believe there are theories or they may even be truths but either way, they are the proposals or revelations of other people that I have to, in effect, guess if they are right or not.
From all my studies and conversations, and you know who I have had the ability to talk with anytime I want, I have learned as much as much as anyone can, and I believe that believing one way or the other wont save you and it wont condemn you so why become judgemental and insist one way or the other?
Can God make a rock so big that even he himself cannot lift it? Same thing.

Pat
There is no undiscovered country here. I have done the same as you. It can be done by anyone these days with the fine translations of the relevant materials.

You seem to rely heavily on Heb.10. However do a study on every instance of sitting down at the right hand of God in the bible and you will see that using the same words, it was used both figuratively and actually.
Since this passage cant be defined definitively (at least to my satisfaction) it puts alot of pressure on then surmising that it is therefore in the "most holy" place. Then there is the debate of if the distinction between holy and most holy place is no more based on the earthly temple curtain being torn, removing the separation between the two. Just being in heaven would then amount to the most holy place. Then there is the debate that even if that were so, it is silent on what is happening in the most holy place.
Waiting for his enemies to be his footstool is passive and can occur when someone is doing something else. It doesnt mean inaction until another event. I have heard explanations along those lines.
I'm sure Tomas Aquinas would be proud.

You wonder about getting published and what if my church board should find out? I wonder if you care more theologically or in affairs of position and employment?
Pride does puff up and I see it happening on both sides here.
I know you wish to build up, my wish in this issue is the same. Not everyone will agree with me but may be we should let people believe as they are inclined and not contend on a battlefield over it. There is really nothing to gain and as you have pointed out in the past there were jobs to lose.

Pat, you create a "false dilemma" with the book of Hebrews.

Paul is not dealing with the time element of the final judgment, nor exactly when Jesus would begin that work in the MHP. He did say it was future.

Paul has one singular theme throughout all his letters. The old covenant services are done and Jesus has begun.

In Hebrews, he telling his listeners by way of a letter this simple fact. And he concludes, "the way" into the MHP is by the blood of Jesus, in contrast to "the way" into the MHP in the old covenant service was by an animal sacrifice.

Every Jew entered the MHP "by faith" every time they offered up a sacrifice for their sins. Do you suppose they were so ignorant they didn't know their sins were held in abeyance until the end of the year and they were forgiven "by faith" as they waited for Yom Kippur?

If you miss this point, you obviously miss Paul's point in Hebrews. If "the way" into the MHP was by animal sacrifices in the OT times, Paul affirms "the way" into the MHP in the heavenly temple is by the blood of Jesus.

Paul is not writing in a vaccuum. His readers already know the subject and don't need specific details concerning the sanctuary service and the time elements.

If you think otherwise, you obviously have missed his point and in the end you create your "false dilemma" about Jesus' ministry in heaven.

A true bible believing SDA does not use Hebrews to "prove" the time element of the final judgment. Paul neither affirms it nor denies it. Although he does alude to it when he states judgment comes after death. Heb. 9:28

Paul does affirm the Jesus sacrifice is all sufficient, but does not say it was applied immeadiately and in a final way for any and all believers. Neither does Paul negate the probationary process that all believers must deal with in this life.

In the end, you can not avoid a "once saved, always saved" conclusion by the way you interpret Paul's comments in Hebrews.

You concluded more than Paul is saying and implied a conclusion that is not consistent with all the bible has to say on the subject.

Bill Sorensen

Bill,

Please show me in Hebrews where Christ began a "second phase" of ministry and judgment in 1844 by going from the HP to the MHP.

regards,
pat

Read my post, Pat. I said Paul is not telling us "when" Jesus would enter the MHP of the heavenly sanctuary.

His point is singular. Meaning, the ministry of Jesus takes the place of the OC service. He is making no other specific point.

Neither is he telling Jesus made the "final atonement" in AD 31.

Don't read more nor less in what Paul is saying.

Bill Sorensen

Bill,

Due to the Christmas holidays I will be with family and friends and will not be in discussion until likely the 27th.

Have a nice Christmas.

regards,
pat

There is no need to "cleanse" the heavenly sanctuary for sin cannot dwell there. You are imposing O.T. Levitical cultus ideas of the typical annual day of atonement. At the cross He made the antitypical atonement for sin by one sacrifice for all time. There is no blood in heaven only it's merits applied by Christ our king-priest to believers. No need of "cleansing of the heavenly tabernacle" as per our "traditional understanding."

regards,
pat

Actually, to some extent, your "traditional understanding" may have be faulty and has caused you difficulty.

The cleansing of the sanctuary is a moral cleansing of the mind of man, and a judicial cleansing of God's name and government.

You are correct, there is no sin in heaven. The sin is in man.
None the less, God's name must be cleared of all the lies and false charges Satan and evil men have made against Him and His kingdom.

When God's name and kingdom are cleared of these false charges, the sanctuary in heaven is "cleansed".

If you were accused of stealing a car by someone who hated you and wanted to alienate people from you, even if you were innocent, a court proceeding would take place and eventually you would be "cleared" or cleansed of the false charges.

Those who believed the lie of your enemy would have their minds "cleansed" of the implications. And your name would be judicially cleared of any guilt.

"Cleansed" can be moral or judicial. In God's case, it is solely judicial. In man's case, it is moral.

Thus "cleansed" is often translated as "justified, set right, restored," as in a judicial clearing of guilt.

We must understand that sin is transfered by imputation and this is the only way sin or righteousness can be transfered.

It is what a person "thinks" that transfers sin.

God imputed sin to Jesus. But Jesus was no sinner. God reckoned Him as such. It was how God thought about Jesus and treated Him accordingly.

Just so, sinners impute sin to God and His kingdom.
God is not guilty. But we think so. When we are converted and born again, we cease to impute sin to God and rather impute it to Satan and ourselves. In this way, God's name is cleared and His sanctuary (government) is cleared of all guilt.

This is the "cleansing of the sanctuary" that began its final phase in 1844 when Jesus moved from the holy to MHP in heaven.

Bill Sorensen

Merry Christmas to everyone from your friends in the Church of Rome. We are taking a few days off from our eternal quest to conquer the world to celebrate. Keafan, you read the Declaration on Religious Liberty, but you didn't comprehend it. No surprise there. Everyone have a great Christmas.

And Merry Annual rebirth of the sun in the northern hemisphere on the 25th. Also, Merry Rebirth of Osiris to the faithful Egyptians and Merry Rebirth of Dionysus to the faithful Greeks.

And shame on the Catholic Church for heisting their pagan holidays.

John Witcombe

Lying to the government, lying to God, this is serious business.

Early in your linked sermon you applauded the smuggling of Bibles into Russia (lying to the government), then toward the end of your sermon claim that lying to the government is serious business. How do you rationalize that? Don't lie to the government unless its something that you "feel" you should lie to the government about?

I agree that lying to protect life is noble but smuggling a banned book into a country doesn't come near that level. Maybe we should smuggle Ellen's GC into nunneries?

keafan, so you are arguing that we DON'T have an obligation to seek the truth? That we should not want to know what is right or wrong? That ignorance is the best policy?

You are arguing that we should not hold to the truth once we have found it. Instead we should seek falsehoods? That we should live according to what we know is a lie and that we should contradict what we have come to know that is true?

You are saying that we do not have the right to follow the truth that we believe in. I suppose you mean we must follow what keafan says it true?

Nothing that you quoted mentions forcing anyone to do anything or to burn them at the stake. Did you leave that part out or is it not there? Actually it wasn't that long ago that good atheists put religious believers, mostly Jews and Christians into ovens and gulags. Atheism has killed 100 million people in the last century. More then in all religious conflicts combined in all of history. Much more.

You confirm that you don't understand what you have read. It is either on purpose or you do not have the mental capacity. I hope it is the latter.

Christmas is a Christian holiday. If you celebrate it then you celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. So you had better not celebrate it if you want to follow your truth as the Church trusts that you will. But I hereby name April 1st as atheist day. You can celebrate on that day by looking in the mirror and saying "I am good enough and smart enough and gosh darn it people like me."

Nice touch Becci,

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all.

To keafan (not verified) @ 22 December 2009 at 6:32:

You brought up about the Treaty of Tripoli. Your description is incorrect. This is explained in a few places, but here's one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

"Translation - Miller's Investigation and Notes"

"The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been found faulty, and there is doubt whether Article 11 in the version of the treaty ratified by Congress corresponds to anything of the same purport in the Arabic version."

"In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States's treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean to the United States's legal position in relationship with the rest of the world. According to Hunter Miller's notes, "'the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic' and 'Article 11... does not exist at all."

"After comparing the United States's version by Barlow with the Arabic and the Italian version, Miller continues by claiming that:

The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point."

"From this, Miller concludes: 'A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic... yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts...'"

Regardless, our laws, customers, etc. ARE based on Christian thinking. It should be obvious.