Protestants renounce Protestantism

Protestant representatives will be in Europe in October 2017 to sign the agreement, ending the Protestant movement and also apologizing to the papacy for their protest.

October 31 of the year 1517 was the historic day that Martin Luther, the reformer, nailed his 95 theses against the corruptions, abuses and abominations of the Roman Catholic Church on the church door of Wittenberg.

October 31, 1517 is seen as a pivotal date marking the break-through of the Protestant Reformation in influencing the European religious world, which for centuries had been controlled by the papal church.

Wittenberg TODAY

Wittenberg is getting prepared by remodeling and gardening projects. There are posters everywhere announcing “Luther 2017, 500 years of Reformation.”

“One could almost say that the Catholic Church has set out from the path of the Counter-Reformation onto that of the Co-Reformation.” says Gerhard Feige, a Catholic ecumenical officer Bishop, in Magdeburg, Germany, to Luther2017.de.

From the declaration (FROM CONFLICT TO COMMUNION Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017}




It is clear that 2017 marks an interesting year for the Catholic Church. First of all the Catholics will commemorate the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation. Secondly, it marks fifty years of Lutheran–Roman Catholic dialogue.

A year of events in approach to the anniversary itself opened on October 31, 2016, and will culminate on October 31, 2017.

May 2017 Pope Francis attended a joint Catholic-Lutheran commemoration of the Reformation leading in prayers asking forgiveness for the divisions perpetuated by Christians from two traditions.

The aim == to leave the past behind and focus on common ground, bringing "unity".

I remember -- fifty years ago people thought all this was impossible. Now it's coming -- yet people still scoff at the warnings in scripture and the testimonies, and embrace the "unity of churches" as truth.

Do you have some kind of reference for this meeting that is to take place in October? I would like to read more. This is an interesting development.

Luther 2017 – 500 years since the Reformation. A journey of discovery, so declare headlines.

One decade was set aside between 2008 and 2017,in order to "rewrite" the story of Luther. There were exhibitions, festivals and concerts across Germany celebrating the anniversary of Luther nailing his theses to the door of the Castle Church. But they are not celebrating Luther as declaring the Catholic pope as the "antichrist" or exposing his role in prophecy -- no, it is "an entire decade devoted to Martin Luther: monk, professor and church reformer."

The Catholic church is reclaiming the man they excommunicated as a "heretic" and calling him a "misunderstood" son of the church. Both sides made "mistakes", it is now said, and thus sadly the division happened, now is the time to reconcile.

The last year from Oct. 31, 2016 - Oct. 31, 2017 the year has been special devoted to lead up to Oct. 31, 2017.
Reformation celebrations
The European dimension of the Reformation will be marked by a storymobile truck, “Stories on tour”, that will start in Geneva on 3 November 2016. It will follow a European roadmap linking 68 towns and cities with a Reformation connection in 19 countries before arriving at Wittenberg on 20 May 2017 for the start of a four-month World Reformation Exhibition, “Gates of Freedom”. Here churches, organizations, groups and artists will present their perspectives on the Reformation.

On 31 October 2017 there is an official ceremony planned for Wittenberg. However, the focus will be on a “decentralised” commemoration, said Bedford-Strohm, with services in the various regional churches in Germany.


Lutherns and Catholics sign joint declaration already Oct. 31, 2016 at the beginning of the year long events to promote the death of the protest of Protestantism, and lead to their unity with the Catholic system.

But things started even earlier:
Also on October 31st, 1999, Roman Catholic officials and most of the Lutheran churches signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification regarding some of the issues at the root of the Protestant Reformation.

October 31, 2017 marks the 500 years of Protestantism. Will Protestantism be marked as "dead" and the "new reformation" which is talked so much about be declared?

Red Globe In front of the town hall in Wittenberg, stands a big globe, placed there to commemorate the reformation. The continents of the whole world are in red color – The color of reformation and revolution. In the middle of the globe, it says: “Reformation 2017”

The "reformation" to end protest and denominational separation and to be united in one world religion of peace and the gospel (is it the real gospel? Hardly)


It is no secret that Pope Francis is a Jesuit. The primary objectives of Jesuits are to overthrow Protestantism, annihilate Protestants and reestablish Roman Catholicism throughout the nations.

Yet the protestants are following him with awe and reverence.


Wittenberg 2017

So would a correct response be to publish a list of the 95 theses with a statement of whether Luther's concerns were incorrect, or still exists today?

A counter publicity stunt, in effect.

What triggered Luther's theses?

Wasn't it Tetzel, operating under papal authority, going around selling indulgences?
Does the Catholic church still sell indulgences?


Head line in 'Our Sunday Visitor" 9/9/15
Pope Francis announces jubilee indulgences Ahead of the Year of Mercy, which begins Dec. 8, the Holy Father outlines ways in which faithful can obtain indulgences"

Ahh -- it's obvious, the search engines come up with multiple sites talking about all the indulgences the pope is offering, the trigger cause for Luther's act which launched the reformation is still very much part of the Catholic Church.

Pastor Walter Veith has a series of lectures called "From Crete to Malta". It's five lectures directed at Protestant Churches world-wide.

He warns all Protestants against this phony unity being proposed by Rome to keep us from falling into it. Pastor Veith was very clear.

Very powerful post, dedication.

This should be brought to the attention of the people, especially in Germany.

Yes, an excellent resource and exposure of what is taking place.

Part one From Crete to Malta

.

How can current Protestantism really object to indulgences any more? Many of them don't even accept the idea of sin and repentance, so to what purpose would they object to indulgences? When Trump was a candidate he once said he didn't think he'd ever done anything that would cause him to need to repent, and the nominal Protestants didn't find anything wrong with what he said.

While America never set up a religion as a state religion to dominate the religious lives of its citizens, yet the prevailing religion in America in the early years was Protestantism.

Methodists, Lutheran, Presbyterians, Baptists, Calvinists, Quakers, Congregationalist, or Episcopalian and a host of sub-divisions from main denominations had their churches scattered all over America. Their members influenced the fabric of American culture.

Each protestant denomination defending their right to be different than the others, yet together they did influence American culture. The centrality of the family, the importance of faithfulness, integrity, and moral living were part of the American culture, not because it was regulated, but because it was part of the individual believing protestant lifestyle.

That's the way it should be --
Not by government enforcement, but by the influence of churches filled with believing Christians within their communities, being an influence to those around them to live according to a higher standard.

What happened?

How did Protestantism die?

How is it that in our day, any attempt to speak in the old-fashioned voice of moral criticism -- like calling sin by it's right name, and urging repentance, is now considered "politically incorrect" and "intolerant" and other silencing names?

I believe (and yes EGW's writings confirm) that the Sabbath issue was a big reason for Protestantism's death.

How we may ask?

Because the Sabbath is the link that tied Protestantism to Catholic "traditions" and destroyed their claim of being "sola scripture".

Protestantism, which had firmly believed the ten commandments were God's guide to personal godly living, were introduced to the fourth commandment as early as the days of Luther -- the Seventh-day Baptists accepted it, and there were others who also accepted it, but most Protestants weren't yet convicted of it. But in the 1800's the seventh day Sabbath was made more prominent. The three angel's messages were sounding in the world --
Would it be accepted or would the Christian world turn against it?

To avoid the claims of the seventh day Sabbath, Protestantism did a strange thing -- they not only rejected the 4th commandment, they rejected the ten commandments altogether.
"Nailed to the cross" they said. To remember the Sabbath to keep it holy is "legalism" and opposes grace, and therefore that command should not be obeyed.
How strange -- if observing the fourth commandment is "legalism" and opposed to grace, and the ten commandments were "nailed to the cross" and "taken out of the way", then keeping the fifth, sixth and seventh (etc) commandments would also be "legalism" and opposed to grace.
That's only logical deduction.

So yes, many did follow to that logical conclusion and now no longer accept the idea of sin and repentance. That is also a logical conclusion for if it is "legalism" that 'frustrates grace" to obey God's commandments, and by rejecting and transgressing one of God's commandments we supposedly are "living by grace", then they have automatically done away with sin.
Sin is the transgression of God's law according to 1 John 3.

Well, ==
once the protestants in America largely "nailed" God's law to the "cross" and declared the keeping of it's precepts "legalism" and opposed to "grace", they lost their moral influence in the community.

Those who still clung to the "old ways" were called "fundamentalists" and the word started taking on negative meaning.

Next--
Religion that has lost it's spiritual influence is appalled when society takes its premises to their natural conclusion (that God's laws are no longer binding) and start living in defiance of God's laws!
The so called protestants even wring their hands when people say nothing is "true" everything simply depends on whether it seems good, or seems unwise, there is no such thing as "sin" or "absolutes".
And yet that is what they taught! Why are they surprised?

Oh they will say, God's laws ARE still binding on the sinner, but not on Christians. So the next step, they feel they must get the government to pass laws forcing proper morality and worship in society.

That's where the Catholic Church stood for centuries -- so why not join hands with the papal church?

So Protestantism is dead,
after all "fundamentalists" don't fit into the new picture, so why cling to divisive doctrines?
Yes, they agree there is a need for a certain amount of morality in society -- but let's impose that by law for "outward" conformity,
and all join together in charismatic "experiential" worship without worrying about doctrines, sin, etc. etc.

That paradigm is sweeping the religious world.

The serious question for us is --
Where do we stand in this?
Is Protestantism still alive and moving forward in lives.?

"Here is the patience of the saints, here are they that keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus" Rev. 14:12

We cannot receive a more emphatic warning than the one we find in the Third Angel’s Message. God wants everyone to know the result of going back to the "beast's" and "dragon's" counterfeit worship system.

The "death" of Protestantism, results in the rebirth of the "beast" power.

• Anyone who stands on the "three angels messages" will fall. Jesus said that He is the Rock that shall NEVER fail.
   
• The "death" of Protestantism is a good thing. Jesus said so. He said, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you." (Mat. 5:43-44) And that is that.
  
  It is NOT for a one-world religion; but for a one-world humanity of humane peace which Jesus Christ himself approved of and endorsed.

///

The comment shows you understand neither the foundation of Protestantism or the message of the third angel's message.

1. the three angel's message is all about worshipping Christ the One who created heaven and earth and all things therein. (see Rev. 14:7)
It is "righteousness by faith" in verity. (see Rev. 14:17)
For Christ is the only source of salvation and He stands at the door and knocks, our part is to open the door and let Him into our lives! (See Rev. 3:20) Once He is in our lives, He justifies and sanctifies, He will transform us -- and the evidence of His transforming power is a life exhibiting Christ's righteousness. (see 2 Cor. 5:17)

So the acceptance of the three angel's message is standing on the solid rock which is Christ our salvation.

2. Protestantism BROKE from a "one-world religion" it is the rejection of Protestantism that is channeling the world back into a mystical "one world religion".
Protestantism not only broke away from an imposed "one world religion" it also rediscovered that salvation is in Christ. It taught we don't need "indulgences" and to get a human to grant us absolution. Salvation is in Christ.

3. The whole thing is to go back under the leadership of papal system. Back to old system of enforced unity that exalts man as the dispenser of salvation and places the people under the control of the papal "father", which will NOT bring peace, but a time of trouble of which the 1260 years were just an example.

So the death of Protestantism is also the death of "reliance on Christ and His word", as well as the rebirth of the "beast".

But why did the Protestants reject the things they have?

It is fairly easy to trace this back quite a ways. In the late 18th century we had the French Revolution which deified human reasoning-- the Goddess of Reason. The French had left God far behind and French authors out to destroy all faith in religion began using mockery, sarcasm, human reasoning, etc... to accomplish this.

In Germany during the same time Lutheranism was the state church. The government was appointing all the leadership positions in the church. As spirituality was not one of their concerns they appointed men with academic ability only rather than men with a knowledge of God. Thus the sermons of the pastors had become essays on archeology, language, the poetry of the Bible, etc... rather than on the spiritual needs of man, sin, repentance, rebirth, etc.... The pastors did this as they had no personal experience with God so they found all of those truths to be of no value. As they read the writings of French rationalists they found their arguments to convincing. Thus they slowly adopted the same beliefs and began spreading it throughout the Lutheran church. Rationalism became the dominant idea throughout European Christian church. It denied the divinity of Christ, the existence of miracles, the work of the Holy Spirit, the inspiration of the Bible, and more.

By the early 19th century the American Protestant theological seminaries were sending their students to Europe, Germany mostly, for the "finishing touches" of the spiritual education. Thus these students came back with their faith often destroyed and had adopted the same rationalistic thinking. This is why the Protestants in America were so antagonistic to the idea of the 2nd coming of Christ. The rationalist leaders of the Protestant denominations here at once began to attack the Millerites as stupid, unable to reason, etc... for the Millerite movement was a spiritual movement, not an academic movement, and that attacked the very basis of rationalism.

We see the further outworking of that rationalism today. We have Protestant seminaries sending out their post-graduate students having taught them to reject the Bible in favor of science, psychology, sociology, human reasoning, etc....

The other thing that grew out of rationalism was socialism. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were products of the rationalists in Germany. Rationalism and socialism combined forces and today we see the results of that. The political agendas of socialism are being taught as Christianity today. Social justice, economic justice, the homosexual and transgender agendas, etc... have taken root in Protestantism. Why? Because a long time ago the Protestants rejected the Bible and now the form of the truths of the Bible about loving thy neighbor have taken the place of a genuine love for our fellow man based upon the principles of God's kingdom and God's love. God's love tells us to stand up for what is right and present the consequences for sin to the world for to let them perish in ignorance is not love. However, that love is now declared to be hate for it cannot be understood by purely human reasoning which rejects the truths of God's word.

For documentation of the first half of this post read N.N. Whitings book The Origin, Nature, and Influence of Neology. Google book and author together and you will find it online in epub and pdf formats. Whiting was a Millerite but never became an SDA. His book is often found with SDA pioneer's books/writings.

For evidence of what I have said in the second half of my post about modern Protestantism here is a link to a dissertation by someone graduating from George Fox University's divinity program. it is titled "No longer in Kansas: The Mainline Church in the Post Modern Age". http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/dmin/54/

That is one influence that worked against Protestantism. The French Revolution, was driven by the Masonic Societies -- men like Voltaire. The connection between the French Revolution and the American Revolution is again -- Masonic influence. George Washington was a high rank Mason. The capital of USA is built on a masonic pattern. Corner stones were laid with masonic rituals.
Thus America not only has a Protestant background, but also a masonic background. The Protestant ideals kept the American revolution from developing into the horrors practiced in the French Revolution (or the Russian revolution). But as Protestant influence is dying, the masonic side is growing, and America will yet suffer the terrors that nearly ruined France back in the late 1700's.

We are admonished to get out of the cities for the scenes of the Revolution will be repeated.

However, there are also other reasons why Protestantism is "dying".

1. The work of the Jesuits who whose primary reason for being was to destroy Protestantism and any other strong hold that rose against the papacy.

2. Protestants failure to break with "tradition" over "sola scripture".

For the first point, there is considerable evidence that the Jesuits are on the same plan as the masons. They have infiltrated the "higher education" and direct the curriculum.

For point #2 we can go back to the council of Trent in 1562. There the debate was to resolve whether Sola Scripture was the authority of the Christian community, or was Catholic Tradition the final authority. In the Council of Trent the Protestant position of Sola Scripture was defeated and the Catholic Tradition upheld BECAUSE THE PROTESTANTS THEMSELVES WERE UPHOLDING IT.

"The Bible and the Bible only," were the watchwords of the Protestants.
"The Bible as interpreted by the Church and according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers," this was the position and claim of the Catholic Church.

Back and forth the arguments flowed. There were strong advocates for the Bible only, even among Catholics within the council. The Papal authorities became very worried as the debate continued day after day.

Then on January 18, 1562 Archbishop Reggio came with an argument that completely took the wind out of the sails of the Protestants and won the battle for tradition over the Bible.

"The Protestants claim to stand upon the written word only. They profess to hold the Scripture alone as the standard of faith. They justify their revolt by the plea that the church has apostatized from the written word of God and follows tradition. Their profession of holding the Scripture alone as the standard of faith, IS FALSE. Proof: The written word explicitly enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. They do not observe the seventh day, but reject it. If they do truly hold to Scripture alone as their standard, they would be observing the seventh day as is enjoined in the Scripture throughout. Yet they not only reject the observance of the Sabbath, but they have adopted and do practice the observance of Sunday, for which they have only the tradition of the Church. Consequently the claim of :Scripture alone as the standard,' fails; and the doctrine of ‘Scripture and tradition' as essential, is fully established, the Protestants themselves being the judges."

The Protestants had no answer. They themselves had admitted that Sunday was a child of the Papacy, yet they were worshiping upon it, rather than upon the Sabbath day.
See note

The Catholic scholars were elated, the advocates for "Scripture alone," surrendered, and the council at once unanimously condemned Protestantism and the whole Reformation as only an unwarranted revolt from the communion and authority of the Catholic Church, and proceeded to other matters.

Note

The Adventist church is also involved in using a lot of tradition instead of Bible teaching! It is sad.

I really don't want to start a fight here, and with all due respect to sincere SDAs, but does no one else understand these points?

The SDA church can not rightly condemn the RCC for holding to Scripture and Tradition when they hold so strongly to EGW, no matter how they "spin" her.

The Seventh-day Adventist church IS NOT a Bible and Bible only church. This puts them DIRECTLY in bed with the Catholic Church. Sorry.

[quote=James Peterson]

• Anyone who stands on the "three angels messages" will fall. Jesus said that He is the Rock that shall NEVER fail.[quote]
  
  The three angels messages came from Jesus and are about Jesus. Revelation 1:1 says so. So, you are greatly mistaken James.
  
  [quote=James Peterson]
• The "death" of Protestantism is a good thing. Jesus said so. He said, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you." (Mat. 5:43-44) And that is that.[quote]
  
  WOW!! That understanding is too far off to offer a good response, but, I will try.
  
  Protestantism was a movement of God to return mankind to the Bible and Bible only. That movement will never end until the Second Coming of Jesus.
  
  I hope I was clear.
  
  [quote=James Peterson] It is NOT for a one-world religion; but for a one-world humanity of humane peace which Jesus Christ himself approved of and endorsed.

[quote]

Classic globalism James. You truly miss the point.

dedication,

You are confusing effect for cause. Had the Protestants not rejected the Bible it would have been their safeguard against the wiles of the devil such as the Masonic and Jesuit influences, and socialism too for that matter.

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

You are absolutely wrong about the Seventh-day Adventist Church Nadi. This message is by far the most Biblical understanding of the everlasting Gospel on the planet earth.

We are Bible and Bible only. The Bible completely supports that prophetic writings of Ellen G. White, in case that is the point you are concerned about.

"YOUR saying so don't make it so." Tom Sawyer.

Very concerned about this point, because...
Shouldn't it be the other way around? EGW should support the Bible, rather than the Bible supporting EGW...

Like I said. SDA has their "authority" in the wrong place, same as the RCC.

Why should that be a point you should be "very concerned" about? If Ellen White supports the Bible, then the inverse is true also: the Bible supports Ellen White. If Ellen White didn't support the Bible then the Bible would not, could not, support her writings for her writings would not support what the Bible says.

You're making a mountain out of semantics as if Ellen White says A on any subject and the Bible says B about the same subject neither would support the other. On the other hand, if Ellen White says B on some subject and the Bible says B on the same subject then Ellen White supports the Bible, and the Bible supports Ellen White.

This is just elementary logic.

The problem is that many of our Church interpretations and many of the so call "writings of Ellen White" (as we do not know if what we have does come from Ellen's pens, or if anything got change a little, and etc...) does not agree with what the Bible says.

Reality is we are very FAR from being a SOLA SCRIPTURE church....

I have seen during the past decade while studying here on this forum while testing our SDA beliefs with scriptures like Ellen and James White encouraged us to do many times--- that most of what we believe are nothing more than teachings of MEN. And I can provide links to many discussions showing that.

Don't get me wrong, I have much respect for Ellen; however, our Church did us and her a dis-service by putting so much emphasis on "her" words and the opinions of the pioneers as infallible. Our Church declares that it is all "truth" and nothing should be changed. This prevents all of us to grow in Christ while making us look like unbalanced and quite deceived in front of others. I know I'be been there for 25 years. Not a good witness at all. And not good at all for our personal spiritual health either.

Yes...
Although I no longer believe either that EGW supports the Bible or the Bible supports EGW...

Upon further reflection I believe the above statement is closer to reality and the order in which we "put support" is, by and large, interchangeable.

I come to this conclusion because I am one who requires support for an argument, so I ask "where is your support for this idea?" and then one turns to the Bible or history or some other source for support.

Your point stands.

The point of concern was the claim by Alchemy that "the Bible completely supports that(sic) prophetic writings of Ellen G. White". Shouldn't it be the other way around? And if so, would it be different and acceptable?

• It would be different. To say that the Bible supports EGW is NOT the same as saying that EGW supports the Bible. Nadi's whole point was to establish the greater authority which is, unquestionably, the Bible. It would be necessary therefore for this greater authority (the Bible) to give legitimacy to (i.e. "support") the writings of EGW; and not the other way around.
   
• Secondly, the writings of EGW though described by SDA as "prophetic" actually prophesy falsely (i.e. contrary to the Bible); and are therefore NOT entirely supported by it. They are not all grounded in it. They do not all spring from it. Many (though they masquerade otherwise) simply cannot be found at all in it.

Those are the facts.

///

In my experience and opinion this is exactly what she does. So we disagree on this point.

Unfortunately, many SDAs go through extreme mental and theological contortions to force a (non-existent) "harmony" between Scripture and EGW. I used to do this until I realized that the thread of logic was so thin as to be absent. I then started to read and understand the Bible for what it actually said and not for what I was told it was saying.

This was enlightening, to say the least. You should try it.

I also found it informative to look at a passage and note what it DID NOT say.

What I bolded above is what I always do in studying the Bible. I also follow that principle in all things I study.

My only "agenda" is to know truth. I have been this way ever since I was a little kid and my insistence on truth and honesty got me whipped, mocked, scorned, abused, etc... but I thank God that He put that burning desire so deeply within me that nothing could ever extinguish it. Truth is worth both living and dying for. I know of nothing else that even comes close to it in value.

This is how I have always treated the Bible and Ellen White's writings since I became a Christian. The Bible is the Supreme authority that everything is tested against, even Ellen White.

Well, Ellen White passed the Biblical test and continues to pass every time something questionable comes up! There aren't any mental gymnastics or anything like that involved!

There is a common problem when trying to explain the Bible to others. They are most often verbally inspired. People like to be able to simply read something and that's it! Even though that may work sometimes with the Bible, most often it will not.

Well, the Bible is thought inspired and must be studied to let the Bible explain itself. Then, and only then, can you get to the real truth of the Scriptures.

Why such a thread as this?

What is the meaning of the name of this thread?

Well, I don't know what the creator of this thread had in mind, but, I believe most Protestants today have lost their way. Protestantism doesn't follow the Bible anymore.

Lutherans are prepared to sign this document with the Roman Catholic Church later this year saying the Reformation is basically over!

This should be impossible! But, it is not.

How is this happening?!?

I really need to hear from the other Protestant Churches on this issue. They need to explain what their belief and reasoning is.

Given the above assertions it should come as no surprise that I require the same thing. In fact I recently altered my point of view after considering a comment you made about support. (EGW vs. Scripture)

That being said perhaps you would like to address the questions raised in the de-railed thread "Is the Investigative Judgement Biblical?" Found here: [url=http://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=182933&page=5][/url]

The two assertions that have failed to receive adequate support are:


You may wish to review the first few pages to understand my view on "authorities" etc. My fundamental position is that the IJ doctrine (among others) of the SDA Church cannot be supported without appealing to EGW, which is its only support, as no other religion or denomination large or small (TO MY KNOWLEDGE) supports this view.

The "Investigative Judgment" is Biblical. But, it is also massive. The sanctuary needs to be covered in detail, then prophetic language and then the 2300 day prophecy of Daniel 8:14. There is quite a lot of history involved as well.

This is why everyone wants to pick on this one truth, because there isn't any easy answer. But, a diligent and honest student of Scripture will find this truth fairly quickly if they are patient.

If you can find it quickly you can explain it quickly.

P.S. That still does not address the two questions posed.

Just sayin.

I am not going to try and define quickly. It will be different for different people.

Yes, I did address the two questions you posed. I addressed both of them. The discipline needed to address such a subject as the Investigative Judgment can't be served by asking and answering a bunch of side questions. There isn't any way of knowing from your questions if you even understand them!

So, I would recommend starting with the earthly sanctuary first. Understand its structure and function first. Then, and only then, move onto what the earthly sanctuary was patterned after. Which is the Heavenly Sanctuary. Then, we can move onto the prophetic significance.

I would be interested to hear from you a brief summary, with a scripture reference or two, what your understanding of 'the judgment" is?

Nadi,

I went back and looked at that thread. Sorry, I wasn't trying to derail it for you. I had only meant what I said as an aside to the discussion.

I think your view vs the SDA view boils down to a basic difference in how the plan of salvation is viewed. In the historic SDA view God is as much on trial before the universe as we are on trial before God. Why? Because God's character was attacked by the devil and 1/3 of the angels and the human race accepted the lie about who God really is and what is He really like.

The devil is the universe's, not just this world's, greatest scam artist. His powers of deceit are immense and as God wants to wipe out sin completely, and sin is simply not trusting God, then God has to have a way of convincing everyone that He is just. Revelation 14:7 occurs before the 2nd coming and yet it says that the "hour of His judgment is come". Hour of whose judgment? God's. The "hour" of our judgment--our reading of the books and investigating the lives of those who made it to heaven and those who didn't comes after the 2nd coming. We simply verify through the meticulous record keeping of God that God has always been just, fair, and righteous.

The entire plan of salvation is the story of the war--the great controversy--between God and the devil. If someone rejects that paradigm then they will never accept the SDA point of view. They cannot because it cuts the foundation of their beliefs off at the knees. Only if a person is willing to look at the entire Bible through this paradigm, and the Bible supports this paradigm from Genesis to Revelation, can SDA theology be really understood and accepted.

This is why SDA theology is so distinctive. No other church accepts the paradigm of the great controversy between good and evil. I don't know why as the evidence for this paradigm surrounds us daily. There is always a struggle between good and evil and it is constant and ongoing. To me it is the greatest evidence that the SDA theology on this is correct. And, it is also the only paradigm that, to me, makes sense out of our completely out of control and insane world.

In regards to Gary K post above, like Nadi correctly quoted before "YOUR saying so don't make it so." Tom Sawyer.

We should be able to support from scriptures our beliefs. Not by text proofing that is often taking out of context and fitted to our interpretation gaps that scriptures doesn't say nor support.

We should be able to show that our believes stands :
a) to the test of ALL scriptures (not some portion while ignoring other that contradict our stand),
b) to the Lord's description of His plan and definitions of legal terms He gave us via His laws,
c) to their future application given to us via the OT prophets,
d) to the revelation of the NT writers who speaks according to the Law & the prophets,
e) to Jesus Christ revelation in the NT that also speaks according to the law & the prophets.

Since Nadi already provided a discussion about the IJ; I think we should further discussed the IJ in that discussion. Then there's plenty of other discussions where SDA doctrines are discussed there that we should take the time to visit and see how Biblical (or not) do we fair in those discussion.

We can bring back the summary of those studied doctrines here and see if Nadi statement is correct by saying "The Seventh-day Adventist church IS NOT a Bible and Bible only church. This puts them DIRECTLY in bed with the Catholic Church. Sorry." From my own personal studies of SDA doctrines in this forum for the past decade, I'm sorry to say that I agree with Nadi.

Here's Nadi's discussion link To discuss about the Investigative Judgment doctrine.

I have moved Gary K post there with 2 questions posed to him about his 2 main points he made above.

You may begin any time.

I sent you a PM

What an attitude!

Maybe you would like to explain your beliefs on this subject as well! Show Scriptural support for what you understand to be the truth of this matter. That never comes from evangelicals!

So, I don't have inclination to be treated this way and will not go through the exercise.

I will reference though Hebrews 9:1-12 as a quick introduction to both the earthly sanctuary and its relation to the Heavenly Sanctuary.

Verses 1-10 clearly cover in brief the structure and function of the earthly sanctuary. Why? Because the earthly sanctuary is still the pattern that is to be followed. And who follows that pattern? God Himself!

This is an extremely important point to make. It doesn't ever matter how many churches understand this. They may all be wrong on this point. But, God isn't.

THE extremely important point to make in all of that is Jesus! Did you somehow miss Him?

Well, Thank You!!
You're too kind!

How did the IJ get into the thread on Protestants renouncing Protestantism and going back to Rome?

Ahh -- it does have a connection.

Could it be that by rejecting the full sanctuary message they have failed to break with Rome?

Instead of placing all their trust in the heavenly High Priest, to forgive, justify, sanctify and judge, are they open to go back to the usurper in these matters?
-- the confessional, the indulgences, the penance, and the inquisition to judge the faith of the congregation?



Other connecting links that are pulling Protestants back to Rome are:

1. The state of the dead --

If everyone goes to hell or heaven (or some also teach of a purgatory) at death, it makes the sanctuary doctrine rather unnecessary as judgment is executed at death.

It also opens them up to the whole "saint" praying idea. Another usurpation of Christ's ministry as our only mediator.
1 Tim 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Finally it opens them up to spiritualism.

2. The Sabbath

Only a few Protestants moved away from Rome on that point. Most worship on the day the church sanctioned, not the day God sanctified and made holy.
Again the rejection of the IJ plays a role -- as the Adventists studied the meaning of the "day of atonement" it was seeing (reading) that the law of the covenant, the ten commandments, are in the ark of the covenant (See Ex. 34:28 and Rev. 11;17) which is in the Most Holy (See Deut. 4:13 Hebrews 9:4, and Rev. 11:17) during the seventh trumpet, which was the convincing point that ALL God's ten commandments are at the base of God's throne, the standard of His judgment!

James 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill (as well as Remember the Sabbath day). Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, (or if you fail to remember to keep holy God's seventh day) thou art become a transgressor of the law.
2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

If you love me, Christ said, you will joyously obey, delighting to do His will. (See John 14:15 and Ps. 40:8)

God's people will honor their Creator, even if all the world follows the beast and his image in trampling upon God's law.

Personally, I do believe the rejection of the IJ from the evangelical world has caused them to lose their way in Biblical prophecies.

Almost all those Protestant churches believed in the Papacy being the anti-Christ up to the 20th century. But, not any more. They continually grow closer to Rome year by year.

That was a terribly verbally inspired post Wanderer. How did you miss Jesus in my post. I didn't miss Him.

"Terribly???"

Yes, Protestants held the historicist method of prophetic interpretation in the 1800's, they also held to the protest against the papal anti-Christ.
And yes, that has all changed.

As I think about WHY it changed, it becomes clearer that rejecting the sanctuary doctrine played a key role in this.
Let me share a little fuller:

During the Reformation it was God leading people out of Rome. God used men like Luther to break through the spiritual darkness and discover the light of salvation in Christ!

When the reformers died there was a lull in which Satan worked hard to try to destroy Protestantism, but God was also working to prepare a people.

The great religious awakening in the early 1800's amongst Protestants brought about Bible Societies and evangelistic movements with large numbers joining the protestant churches. God was working -- preparing the world for something.

Interest in the prophecies blossomed.
The Protestants at this time interpreted prophecy by the "historicist" method. That is -- they viewed the prophecies as covering time from the prophet's time to the end. (Which is still the official SDA method) Protestant Bible students used the day for a year principle. In other words -- the method used by Seventh-day Adventists to interpret prophecy was used by all the protestants back then.

This historicist method of interpretation points the finger at Papal Rome as the subversive power ruling the western world during the 1260 years. It points the finger at the papacy as the antichrist.
I'm sure you've heard all this in much greater clarity on Walter Veith's talks.

The historicist method also pointed to 1844 as the time the "sanctuary will be cleansed". Miller was not the only one who noticed this. The historicist method even outlines the rise of the Advent movement in Rev. 10, as those who "eat" the prophetic book, ingest the prophecies which are sweet in the mouth but are bitter in the stomach.

Things came to a huge climax in 1844.

" Had Adventists, (that is the whole group that believed Miller's message) after the great disappointment in 1844, held fast their faith and followed on unitedly in the opening providence of God, receiving the message of the third angel and in the power of the Holy Spirit proclaiming it to the world, they would have seen the salvation of God, the Lord would have wrought mightily with their efforts, the work would have been completed, and Christ would have come ere this."

Had all those people stepped out on the platform of truth concerning the sanctuary, they would have understood the three angel's messages and pointed out the work of salvation for the last days to the rest of the world.

But most wanted nothing to do with it. They turned their backs. They would not move forward, but went backward.

Next they rejected the historicist method of interpreting scripture and in its place accepting futuristic or preterist interpretations, abandoning the historicist position almost completely including the day for year principle.
Even the Baptists who were once very strong in upholding the protestant prophetic method of interpretation have largely abandoned it.

These methods of interpretation were first pushed by Jesuits as both methods totally ignore what prophecy says concerning the papacy. Preterism and futurism are anti-Reformation- anti=Protestant inventions. These were later taken up by Protestants, and changed somewhat, but never-the-less destroyed the confidence of most of the Christian world in the historicist method.

Now they have only Epiphanies and some future dictator as their prophetic anti-christs -- the prophetic books, especially the book of Daniel is christless in their view.

By dissolving (in their minds at least) all the Biblical backing that identify the antichrist people have no more foundation to understand the three angel's message to "come out of her".
Thus we see a big diversity of thought on what that message could mean --
Now the cry is "unity" -- with the papacy -- and point to John 17, and the call is "let's all join" together, forgetting and forgotten is the old Protestant prophetic picture.

What does it mean when the Protestant world renounces the protest, and say that Protestantism is over?
What does it mean to renounce the protest against the Roman Catholic system?
Most think it's just a kindly act of Christian togetherness, but they have neglected the warnings, for it means more than most realize. The Protestant world in their overtures to Rome will wake up when it is too late and they reap the startling and dreadful consequences of renouncing their protest.

Protestants have not only thrown out the historicist prophetic interpretations that clearly pointed to the papacy as the little horn and the "harlot" of these prophecies, they have also neglected to study their history and all the "infallible" documents containing the policies of Papal Rome.

The word "Protestants" actually arose to promenice from the the Princes' Protest.
The Pope and the Emperor were demanding submission to church/state authority and approved beliefs. The princes stood firmly against the demand, arguing that they could not comply to human demands that required them to deny their Savior and go against conscience. The protest was contending for religious liberty.

It was this protestant principle which underlies the freedoms upon which the United States was built. It’s Constitution guaranteed freedom of conscience, as declared in the first amendment, and guarded by the fourteenth amendment.

George Washington in 1789, in a letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, wrote:

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”

So what does the end of Protestantism mean?

It means the end of liberty of conscience, of individual accountability to the claims of God. It justifies the Papal
claims of spiritual authority, and condemns Luther and the protestant princes.

Rome hasn't changed -- but Protestantism has -- it is they that are losing their protest.

dedication,

As per your first three paragraphs, many of those going through so-called Protestant divinity programs have for all intents and purposes left the Bible behind. The following link is to a post-graduate thesis on Protestant churches and how the "new" Protestants think.

The author is lesbian pastor who completed her degree at George Fox University under the mentoring of Leonard Sweet.

http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/dmin/54/

Catholics have printed a new book appealing to Protestants to reunite with them.

The 500th Anniversary of Protestantism celebration seems to be geared to ending the Protestantism and re-establishing one, papal led, religion.

Towards
Unity
Ecumenical Dialogue
500 Years
After the Reformation

(Here's the amazing write up on the book.)

“This year we commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. It is significant, and a sign of the times, that a Roman Catholic publisher has published Towards Unity: Ecumenical Dialogue 500 Years after the Reformation, Since the Reformation, Christian unity has suffered many failures. Yet, especially in more recent times, it has also celebrated encouraging successes. Disparate Christian traditions are beginning to trust each other. Will Christians eventually find one shared identity? On the eve of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, this timely collection of essays by prominent Catholic and Protestant ecumenists witnesses a hope for a future Christian unity born out of 50 years of honest and genuine dialogue. Discerning, and clearly written, this book will appeal not only to academics, and ecumenists, but to all Christians who, reflecting on the conflicts borne of the Reformation, have come to believe that divisions among Christians go against the mind of Christ.”

But there are Catholic books that go beyond bringing Protestantism back "into their fold".

Interfaith Dialogue
A Catholic View

Seeks a unity with non Christian religions.

The book has inside titles such as:
Christians and Muslims Together; Creating a culture of Peace
Mary as a sign for the world according to Muslims.

What is revealing --
is that those books are doing what has been prophesied.
Their theme:
Let's dialogue and find the points upon which we can agree, and move ahead together toward "that transcendent goal that God has set for us."

Remember the phrase by EGW
" uniting upon such points of faith as are held by them in common"

When Protestant America renounces Protestantism and follows that papal blueprint uniting with Catholicism, they will follow the pope's agenda, and
.

As I said elsewhere, this is a definite sign on how much closer we are to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ!

Just reading the introduction to the new Sabbath School Quarterly on Romans and came to this paragraph describing the fall of Protestantism.
One that requires a dictionary to understand, but it sounds like it needed big words to describe protestants falling condition and what we are facing today.



The Reformation stalled.
That happened years ago.
Then back in the early 1800's there was a great revival -- the great awakening -- the Holy Spirit working to move the reformation forward. But it stalled again when the three angel's messages were largely rejected by Protestantism.
The Sunday tie with Rome remained unbroken.
It was the Sunday that stalled the reformation back in the council of Trent.
And it was again the Sunday that stalled Protestantism in the 1840's when the light from the heavenly sanctuary illuminated the Sabbath of God's commandments.

"people actually turned back to Rome"
Sunday sacredness...creates a bond of sympathy with Rome" {4SP 405.1} Also the forms and rituals to achieve holiness which the Catholic Church teaches, as led people back to Rome. Men like John Henry Newman, a leader in the Church of England, started to write on righteousness by faith and incorporated a lot of the Roman Catholic disciplines for holies -- the asceticism, vows, fasting, long hours of seclusion and meditation, which seemed to him a helpful method to obtain greater holiness. He would say, look what the Catholics are doing to achieve holiness!
It's interesting that these very disciplines are now invading Protestantism in a remarkably successful movement called "Spiritual formation". Even Adventism is getting in on this wave. It carried Newman back into the Catholic Church, and it is carrying Protestantism back into unity with the Catholic Church.

in an age of ecumenism and pluralism
ecumenism -- let's unit on points we can agree upon, and join hands.
pluralism -- all religions have some truth, and are valuable
Both terms describe this age which seeks to promote unity and the putting aside differences.

the distinctive truths that spurred the Reformation have become blurred

What were these distinctive truths?
1) The Bible is the Word of authority, not tradition.
2) Salvation is by Faith in Christ our righteousness, it is not in merit systems, penance, works to earn salvation, or buying indulgences, or other contributions to purchase release from judgment, nor is it by an ongoing participation in the sacramental system. etc.
3) The pope is the antichrist of scripture.



covered up under a fusillade of semantic chicanery that seeks to hide fundamental differences
fusillade = a volley or shower of shots
semantic = the different meanings of words
chicanery = trickery, deceitful, duplicity

A lot of dialogue is going on where words are not given their true meanings and the sheer volume of this talk is deceiving people into thinking that the fundamental differences have somehow been resolved.

No, they are not resolved -- not at all.

The fundamental differences have been resolved no more now than they were in Luther's day.
Every one of the key issues that spurred the Reformation are just as present today as they were in Luther's day.

And let it be remembered, it is the boast of Rome that she never changes.
She claims infallibility.

I will never apologize for my protest against Rome! I was raised Roman Catholic and I'm so glad to have found the truth as it is in God's word.

I agree, we must not apologize for separating from Rome --

The protest of Protestantism that is being ignored by the ecumenical leaders, is based on prophetic interpretation. The biggest threat is the religious CONTROL over all religions that Papal Rome insists is her right.

This is hugely ignored by the media and religious news reports. The conviction that gave the reformers the courage to fearlessly stand against the powerful church which claimed to have the very keys to heaven, was their prophetic understanding that the papacy was the very anti-Christ sitting in the temple of God, acting as if he had the powers of God.

Protestants became blind when they rejected historicist interpretation of prophecy and now they don't see what is coming.
The papal system has not hidden the fact that --

1. They are the MOTHER church, they insist they are NOT a "sister" church joining up with other "sister" churches.
(That fits Rev. 17 so perfectly I don't know why protestants don't see it)
2. The primacy of the pope is a non-negotiable part of Rome's conditions for ecumenical unity.
3. Protestants are returning to Rome -- Rome isn't joining Protestants.


“The pacific tone of Rome in the United States does not imply a change of heart. She is tolerant where she is helpless. Says Bishop O'Connor: ‘Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world.’” GC 565

Once Papal Rome gets control people will no longer have freedom to search for truth and follow it. Then the false doctrines of Rome will be enforced and become a major and dark issue.

All Heaven may cry over this one.

Protestantism depicted in the seven churches.
These churches represent the different stages of the church throughout history.
But even though they have a significant time in history, we must not think the previous church disappears when the next church begins. We will find the different stages continuing though they may no longer be the prominent one for that time.
There is however, one exception, one of the churches dies.

Review:
Ephesus represents the apostolic church
Smyrna represents the persecuted church
Pergamos represents the church accepted by Imperial Rome (accepted/supported by government)
Thyatira represents the papal controlled church
Sardis represents the reformation or protestant church

And it is Sardis we need to look at as we discuss the death of Protestantism.

Jezebel, the scarlet woman of Thyatira, and Revelation 17, was given time by God to repent, but she would not (Rev. 2:21). To keep faith and truth alive the Lord had to raise up a new movement. The corrupt condition of the corporate body of Thyatira had existed for more than nine hundred years before the Reformation.

Sardis represents the Protestant Reformation. They pulled away and became separate and distinct from Jezebel and her corruptions. Although Jezebel continues on, the woman represents the papal corrupted religion which is no longer a light for the gospel, or testimony for God in the earth, yet she is still alive, and will come back to power in the time of the end (Rev. 17}

The Protestant Reformation was God working anew to bring back the gospel by His Spirit and once again offer salvation and righteousness by faith to the people.
. Sardis represents the time after the Reformation as well, showing what happens to Protestantism right up to our time.



Protestantism is dying. As a movement it is DEAD. But there are still a few within Protestantism who are faithful, whose names are in the book of life.

Thyatira is the total corruption of the original message and blessings given to the Ephesus church, while Sardis was given the responsibility to bring back life and light of the gospel, and the blessings of God. But Sardis is judged by God as spiritually dead, only individual faithful ones are judged as worthy and dressed in white. Both churches have a faithful remnant that God distinctly marks and acknowledges (Rev. 2:24, 3:4)

But Sardis itself is declared as dead, and Protestants have now also declared Protestantism to be dead.

The ecumenical movement may be breaking down the whole Protest of mainstream Protestantism. But should we quietly smile and say "Wonderful, this is the realization of love and good will, let's embrace it?"



Wait! What does the Bible say?

Should we get out the scissors and cut out all the references to the beast, false prophet, and beastly images?
Is there no longer a beast?
Does it no longer matter if we violate God?s Ten Commandments in order to embrace Babylon's rewritten commandments?
And how to we find forgiveness for our sins? Does it really come through faith in Jesus Christ alone? (see 1 John 1:9, Acts 4:12). or do we need earthly priests to do that?
Or maybe we don't need it at all????? The word "repentance" seems to be disappearing.

And what about Babylon? Doesn't Prophecy predict God will initiate a huge protest by having His messengers loudly proclaim the last and urgent loud protest against Babylon, through the global proclamation of three angel?s messages recorded in Revelation 14:6-12. and Revelation 18:1-6.

Come out of Babylon MY PEOPLE! Pick up a Bible. God?s three angels are now announcing that the ?hour of His judgment has come? (14: 7), we must choose, between the Creator and the Beast. It's an
urgent message, urging the true worship of the Creator (verse 7), and warning God's people to get out of Babylon, for Babylon is not offering true worship and will receive plagues and be utterly destroyed.


Why is it that even some Adventists seem to be infected with ecumenicalism and make remarks like --
"we've heard too much about beasts, lets just concentrate on the love of God."

Yes, by all means concentrate on the love of God, but don't get rid of the urgent warnings of the traps and deceptions planned for God's people!!! God gave us these warnings, for a reason.
Knowing about them should drive us ever closer to our Refuge in Christ.

Why do we hear things like," stop all this arguing and talk over a day, let's just worship God."

Yes, by all means worship God, but don't belittle the day God invites us into a special worship and resting relationship with Him, commemorating His creative and sanctifying power. We don't offer worship by rejecting His commandments!
Is the "day of worship" an important sign that (especially in the last crises) God is our God, Lord and Savior, or is it not.? (Rev. 14:12)

The protest is not dead -- indeed it is to swell into a loud message (Read again the first verses in Revelation 18)