Catholic Idolatry

[simplejeff]

"We which are alive AND REMAIN"  means those ekklesia who are alive and remain  ,  not we [Paul and y'all]

[brakelite]

6 hours ago, Yowm said:

<shrugs also> you should know, the difference between hers and the Apostles and Prophets in the Bible is that hers were false like this one..

..the Apostles did not have ONE false prophecy like this one for example...

"Mrs. White and the Day of Atonement

When Christ failed to return as predicted in 1844, Adventists devised a teaching to try and explain that something had actually happened in 1844. According to this teaching, the heavenly Day of Atonement began in 1844 and Jesus moved from one room of the sanctuary to another room, shutting the door behind Him:

"This door was not opened until the mediation of Jesus was finished in the holy place of the sanctuary in 1844. Then Jesus rose up and shut the door of the holy place, and opened the door into the most holy, and passed within the second veil, where He now stands by the ark, and where the faith of Israel now reaches. I saw that Jesus had shut the door of the holy place, and no man can open it; and that He had opened the door into the most holy, and no man can shut it (Rev. 3:7,8)."¹

"So when Christ entered the holy of holies to perform the closing work of the atonement, He ceased His ministration in the first apartment." (see link for more)

http://www.nonegw.org/egw12.shtml

I suggest you do a study on that date, October 22, 1844. The date is correct. The event was wrong. Personally, I believe Jesus would have returned a long time ago if His church/bride was ready. His bride, even to this day, has trouble deciding if she really wants to go, and persists in wearing her own fashionable wedding garment rather than the one provided. All prophecy is conditional.

Also take a look at the history of those events that led up to 1844. It wasn't just in the US that the second coming was being proclaimed. South America, Europe, and Africa had their share of evangelists who were unconnected, yet annointed and inspired to preach a message never before heard in Christendom...the fulfilling of prophecy. These messages brought about a revival in many paces among churches that had grown stagnant and lifeless, and which grew even more dead as they rejected the massage. This was a work of the Holy Spirit. It was for the express purpose to alert the church of the soon coming of Christ. That these preachers of righteousness got the event wrong, does not make them false prophets, particularly when it was God allowing them to be misled for His purposes.

The imminence of the second coming was preached by Paul. It was taught by many of my own forbears who were not Adventists. It was taught by pentecostal churches 60 years ago.Many then would swear that Jesus was coming in their lifetime. I thought He would come by 1988, as did many evangelicals of the time. I still think He will come in my lifetime. Yet again, He may not. But imminence is a character of expectation that is desirable among God's people. That way we are all ready, whether it is for death or translation.

I

Edited February 20, 2018 by brakelite

[brakelite]

2 hours ago, Cobalt1959 said:

Seventh Day Adventists Hospitals have been performing elective abortions on demand since 1970.  SDA hospitals were so forward-thinking and cutting edge on this issue that they started offering elective abortions three years before Roe v. Wade was adjudicated.  That is not my opinion, that is fact.  You can't claim to be giving your tithe to an SDA church and then claim you are not supporting abortion.  That claim leaves you with no credibility at all, on any moral issue and the claim is also false.  Your tithe money goes to the SDA church and then a portion of it goes to support the SDA hospitals.  The only way your money could go to an SDA hospital supporting abortion faster was if you just carried the check down to the front office yourself and cut out the middle man at the church.  You don't like dealing with that fact, because you've never actually dealt with it yet.  You make excuses as to why it's OK.  Instead of actually dealing with the issue, you try and turn it back on other people.  I can't control where my tax money goes.  No American can, and we have no way to control that money because we have no choice when it comes to paying taxes.  You make a conscious decision to attend an SDA church.  You are not forced to do so.  You are not forced to tithe there.  These are personal choices that you make, and continue to make despite the fact that you know SDA hospitals routinely murder unborn children.  There is no excuse you could give that would justify that choice.  So I am amazed that you would even attempt to float the last sentence that I highlighted since you are attending a church that funds hospitals that murder people.  Part of your tithe check that you gave last Saturday went towards making sure an innocent, unborn child never sees the light of day but ends up in a dumpster instead and you are telling me that I need to come out of whatever it is you think I'm in?  Really?  That is a textbook illustration of cognitive dissonance.

You have misunderstood me. When I said I don't pay tithe to a church that supports abortion, I meant precisely that. I don't pay tithe to a church that supports abortion. I don't pay tithe to the SDA church at all.

As to the investigative judgement being works based, I disagree, but can fully understand your perspective. I came to the SDA church from a Pentecostal background...it was not without much investigation, prayer, and Bible study that I finally accepted and saw what the IJ meant to Adventists, and how Biblical it is. In fact, so Biblical, the second coming cannot take place until it's finished. Not only is that evident in prophecy, but in the types and symbolism of the OT sanctuary services and annual feast days. If you haven't done a complete study of it from an Adventist perspective, then it is inevitable that you end up with an incorrect notion of what it means. It is not a 'get out of jail free card' that many believe E White dreamed up to save the church from embarrassment in 1844. 

As to the law in general, and the Sabbath being a part of that, to claim just because we keep Sabbath it is therefore by default something we are doing in order to be saved, is somewhat disingenuous. You say this in the face of direct testimony that contradicts your opinion, thus judging the motives and practices of 20 million individuals (and that's just SDAs) all across the globe who honor what they know is still a day sanctified and blessed of God. The reason we promote it, is not because we believe we are saved by it, or that you will be lost without it, but because we know from prophecy the time is coming when our opposers will use a counterfeit as a a test of orthodoxy. SDAs have long been strong advocates for religious freedom, and it is in this context that we believe we should defend our right to observe Sabbath, and that our defense is both ethical in context of religious freedom, and Biblical in the context of what we know will come when having to face our accusers with their charges of heresy and civil disobedience. The loss of salvation comes when our enemies choose to persecute Sabbath keepers on the basis of civil legislation over-riding what we see as a commandment of God. Whether you disagree theologically with that is a side issue. What is the more important is the coercion and force (to the point of a death sentence) that will come that contravenes our rights to conscience. 

Shades of this exist everywhere. In Europe where the Catholic church is in the process of demanding Sunday laws (and succeeding)in respect of trade and commerce ...the current Sunday movement in the US which seeks to implement Sunday laws restricting trade and commerce...the former blue laws in the US (some of which, while not enforced, are still on the books)...even a suburb in my current city of Melbourne outlaws any tradesmen from doing business within that vicinity on Sundays. While these do not represent a direct threat to Sabbath keepers...and do not constitute a direct violation of my rights to worship, they do violate my rights to work. In a crisis situation, such as 9/11 but perhaps on a global scale, and in fear of the judgements of God, a Christian community could, and shall I believe, very easily increase the ante and forbid anyone to worship on any day other than Sunday. That will affect even those of you who have regard to no particular day. But the institutional churches who for centuries have regarded Sunday as a sacred day and essential to salvation, as does Catholicism, then your objections to SDAs keeping Sabbath takes on a whole new meaning. I think you need to look at things from our perspective...you may not agree with it, but you could at least come to a greater understanding to where we are coming from.

[OneLight]

I thought this thread was about Catholics?  Perhaps this should be split?

[simplejeff]

On 2/12/2018 at 10:06 PM, KiwiChristian said:

Definition of "worship" : Ardent devotion; adoration.

"worship"  of demons is common worldwide in /throughout society.   "catholic idolatry" if catholic is seen as an adjective is present in many countries and groups that are not ostensibly "catholic", but the idolatry is from the same source ("babylon").

 

[brakelite]

5 hours ago, Cobalt1959 said:

You still support the position of your church by attending it.  You have no end-run around that.  You are here in a thread condemning the Catholic church, but for all their doctrinal faults, they still strongly condemn abortion.  Your church does not.  They actual perform abortions in their hospitals, and as a member of that church, you are a party to that, or you would not be there.  That logic is not difficult to figure out.  Double standard in play.

The IJ doctrine implies that Jesus, who is omnipotent, since He is also God, isn't smart enough to know, as God, who does and does not belong to Him.  That is a bad doctrinal position to be it.  All based on a feint because of failed prophecies by a false prophet.

I'm not claiming it is something you do personally to be saved.  I am saying that is what your church actually teaches, whether you like it or not, and whether you will admit it or not.  The emphasis your church places on the Sabbath means it is something that has to be done to be saved and the Sabbath-keepers enforce that rational every time they tell others they are doomed if they don't "keep" it.  If they are doomed, that means it's required for salvation.  You can try and split hairs, but the outcome is still the same.  As long as it's importance is stressed above all else, you've got yourself a works-based salvation.  So until you can correct your own doctrinal errors, you have no base on which to operate to call out others for false doctrine.  Both SDA's and the Catholic church operate in doctrinal error.  So you are both sitting in the same boat.  You are just sitting at opposite ends with each trying to pretend like the other one isn't there.

Perhaps Elijah should have joined the Canaanites because Israel had in its midst prophets of Baal?

I suggested you study the IJ. You need to. Why open books if God "knows everything". Why have books?

No-one in the church has ever taught, not E White or any other leaders of the faith, nor anyone I know of today, nor is it written in any of the books or pamphlets detailing our beliefs, that Sabbath keeping justifies anyone. What we DO teach is that if one desires to be fully sanctified, their lives ought to be in harmony with the laws of God. SDAs are not the only ones who teach this. The sticking point is the Sabbath...you reject the Sabbath but your only defense is to charge us with legalism. Good try but it doesn't work.

[Mishael]

http://www.ocf.net/icons-are-not-idols/

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/so-catholics-worship-statues.html

The Bible defines idol worship as taking another god besides the true God while making sacrifices to a false idol. Having icons and statues of Jesus Christ and Saints doesn't fit this criteria. I'd urge you to read these articles and the words of the early Church Fathers well before blindly accusing others of idolatry.

[OneGodBeliever]

On 19/2/2018 at 5:52 AM, Wayne222 said:

       There are true Christians in the Catholic church. I know a lot of what they do is not biblical. But the SDA Is not biblical as well. When the true Antichrist appears he will not be a pope but a Muslim more then likely.

Jesus is a prophet of God in Islam and is believed to kill the antichrist at the end of time

[Mishael]

On 4/12/2018 at 8:30 AM, OneGodBeliever said:

Jesus is a prophet of God in Islam and is believed to kill the antichrist at the end of time

That's a common Islamic myth the Islamic version of Jesus is not the same as the Christian jesus even the names aren't the same Jesus in Arabic is Yasue yet in the Quran he's called Isa. Funny the Quran says Jesus will descend with Imam Al Mahdi to kill the dajjal who claims to be the king of kings yet we believe Jesus is the king of kings will kill the Anti Christ and false prophet when they try to annihilate Israel and the believers. Our villains are your heroes our hero is your villain.

[OneGodBeliever]

9 minutes ago, Mishael said:

That's a common Islamic myth the Islamic version of Jesus is not the same as the Christian jesus even the names aren't the same Jesus in Arabic is Yasue yet in the Quran he's called Isa. Funny the Quran says Jesus will descend with Imam Al Mahdi to kill the dajjal who claims to be the king of kings yet we believe Jesus the king of kings will kill the Anti Christ and false prophet when they try to annihilate Israel and the believers. Our villains are your heroes our hero is your villain.

Isa ibn Marian(isa son of Mary) is same as Jesus son of Mary. Jesus never said he was God. Paul attributed divinity to him. What Muslims believe is also in bible:

Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.
Acts 2:22