What to say to 7th day adventist about anti-christ

[Montie_Claunch]

Dear Freinds,

I need help trying to tell some Seventh-Day Adventist that we are not the Anti-Christ as Ellen White says.
A Seventh-Day Adventist Pastor even sent me a lengthy letter telling me how this is.
He stated that in Daniel 7 the beast with ten horns were ten nations that Rome broke up into (Visigoths,Anglo-Saxons,Franks,Alemania,Burgundians,Lombards,Suevi,Heruli, Ostrogoths and Vandals). That the Little horn was the Pope and the Papal states who art supposed to have uprooted the three other horns (Heruli, Ostrogoths, and Vandals). He says the pompous words and the changing of the times and laws were such things as confession, the change of worship from Saterday to Sunday and the supremacy of the papacy. That the anti-christ would get drunk on the blood of the saints, saying that the Church has killed anywhere from 50 to 150 million people.
That the time, times and half a time would describe a 1260 year reign of the papal states (Daniel 7:25) saying that the papal states were from 538-1798 when the french toppled it.
And of course the city on seven hills is Rome.
I need help because I am not at a pastors level of theological thinking and I don’t want anyone slandering our church and taking people away from it. If someone could give me an anilitical look at this at tell me what I should tell this “Pastor” and other 7th-day adventist I would me everso gratefull.

 

[RyanL]

50-150 million? That’s a bit much, even by wacko standards. You might ask for documentation, for starters.

Here are some good links for you to read to prepare a response:
Whore of Babylon
Seventh Day Wondering
Sabbath or Sunday?
From Sabbath to Sunday

Good luck, pray for this pastor often, and God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Church_Militant]

That is whack job…one thing that they forget is that there weren’t that many people in Europe during the years they allege. If there had been that many killed (even the 50 million) it would’ve meant the depopulation of Europe…which we know did not happen.

The SDA are really out there … The tracts above are probably your best bet…and a decent knowlege of simple history.

 

[Genesis315]

Tell him, he better not be spreading what he knows around or it might be 150 million…and one. Then cackle maniacally and run away.:whacky:

Ok, I was just kidding. The tracts above are great. As for the Church being drunk on the blood of saints, not even SDAs would consider Albeginsians to be saints. In fact, the only saint i can think of that the Church put to death is Joan of Arc, and the Church made adequate amends for that one.

 

[CreosMary]

Ask him on whose authority does he interprete these Biblical references?
Has he read the Church Fathers?
Does he really know what the RCC stands for or belives?
Maybe send him a copy of the catechism if he is willing to read it.
By your fruits you will be known, such hatred coming from his pen for the belief of the majority of the world and the only Church still existing that was established by Christ himself!! My what pride he must have.
See your local PP too
God Bless
Br Creosmary

 

[adventistnomore]

Lol… the alleged connection between “paganism” and Sunday has long been dealt with by the Catholic church. To give you an idea of how early this has been the case:

Tertullian, c. 197 CE

“Others… suppose that the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity.” (Ad Nationes I:XIII)

“In the same way, if we devote Sunday to rejoicing, from a far different reason than Sun-worship.” (Apology, section 16)

The Church has faced such charges for 18 centuries, and refuted them for 18 centuries.

 

[Maryam]

Hi ** Montie Claunch ** I sympathize with you… Personally, my uncle became a 7th Day Adventist and it isn’t easy, but, in my trying to shed some light about what the SDA teaches he is starting to slowly see the truth.

I think the main points about the Adventist church that disturbed my uncle was in being confronted with the writings from the early church.

In the Didache (90 AD… some say it can be placed later around 150 AD) that is said to have been written by the Apostle’s. It mentions their coming together on the Lord’s Day which was the day that Our Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week, which for Jews of that time would have been Sunday.

So, this kind of evidence makes the claim that Adventists make for Saturday being the day we must go to church not logical.

A good place to read the writings of the Early Fathers of the Church would be ccel.org Just look in the subject index.

Another point is their belief that the soul remains in the body after we die and that the body/soul is merely asleep awaiting Judgement. To believe this is to not believe in that when we die we are judged (go to heaven, hell or purgatory) before we have our Final Judgement.

Lastly, in a book written by the founder of the Adventist’ Ellen G. White called " The Great Controversy " (Of which in the weblink I provide towards the end of this post, has a link on this book that shows she plagiarized alot of this book from another writer) we see that all of our sins fall on Satan…

Now, call me crazy, but, didn’t Christ die on the cross for the SINS OF ALL FOR ALL TIME!!! To have Satan take all the sins of mankind unto himself would make Christs crucifixion all for nothing… Wouldn’t this qualify as “Anti-Christ” writings???

Here is an excerpt from Chapter 28, page 485 of this book:

whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc28.html

<<<<<In the typical service the high priest, having made the atonement for Israel, came forth and blessed the congregation. So Christ, at the close of His work as mediator, will appear, “without sin unto salvation” (Hebrews 9:28), to bless His waiting people with eternal life. As the priest, in removing the sins from the sanctuary, confessed them upon the head of the scapegoat, so Christ will place all these sins upon Satan, the originator and instigator of sin. The scapegoat, bearing the sins of Israel, was sent away “unto a land not inhabited” (Leviticus 16:22); so Satan, bearing the guilt of all the sins which he has caused God’s people to commit, will be for a thousand years confined to the earth, which will then be desolate, without inhabitant, and he will at last suffer…>>>>>

Here is also a website link shedding some light on Ellen G. White:

ellenwhite.org

I think this will make the SDA persons in question who have made these attacks on the Catholic Church have some food for thought to think about.

God bless you

 

[adventistnomore]

Hi

As a former Seventh-day Adventist theology major (still studying at an Adventist university), I think I can be of some help.

I dealt with this same issue on another thread months ago, but my response was done very quickly and sloppily (despite its length). This is the perfect oppurtunity to update and refine my counter-attack on those claims. Here is a basic sampling of the Adventist argument (which your pastor friend must have presented to you):

THE TEN IDENTIFYING POINTS OF THE ANTICHRIST POWER

1, 2. It “came up among” the other 10 horns or kingdoms, after 476 A.D. There is only one “little” kingdom that fits this description (the little horn) and that’s the Vatican (Papal States).

1. Daniel 7:8, It’s still to this day a “little kingdom.” The Vatican is only 109 acres in size, but it is a powerful kingdom and the wealthiest kingdom in the world. No other power fits this description.

1. Daniel 7:8, It “uproots three kingdoms.” Clearly documented in history is the eradication of the Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths by the armies of Papal Rome. The last to go were the Ostrogoths in 538 A. D. The same year, Roman Emperor Justinian gave the Bishop of Rome authority over the kingdom.

1. Daniel 7:8 (last part), There would be “A man at its head.” To this day the Vatican City is the only kingdom that has always had a visible man at its head, the Pope.

1. Daniel 7: 24, “It would be different.” All the preceding kingdoms had been simple governments set up in normal political manners. Papal Rome, however, was and still is unique and different because it is a CHURCH that
   rules. Policies are dictated by the Bishops and Popes.

1. Daniel 7: 25, It “speaks great words and blasphemy.” The Bible definition of blasphemy is composed of two things. 1. A man claiming to be God. 2. A man claiming to have power to forgive sins. From the pages of Catholic books. FERRARIS’S ECCLESIASTICAL DICTIONARY under THE POPE says: "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a man, but as it were, God, and the Vicar of God. What about the forgiveness of sins? JOSEPH DEHARBE’S CATECHISM says, on page 279: “The priest does really and truly forgive sins in virtue of the power given to him by Christ.” Another from THE CATHOLIC PRIEST, pages 78, 79: "Seek where you will, through heaven and earth, and you will find but one created being who can forgive the sinner, who can free him from the chains of hell, that extraordinary being is the priest, the (Roman) Catholic priest. Yes, beloved brethren, the priest is not only declares that the sinner is forgiven, but he really forgives him.

1. Daniel 7:25, “He would war against God’s people and persecute them.” Although this is now past, all people of the earth are aware of the millions of martyrs put to death during the Dark Ages by the Papal armies. The most conservative estimates are 50 million men and women who were put to death. One only needs to read the pages of hundreds of history books available to document this, Pope Innocent 111, 1198-1216 was responsible for thousands of martyrs. The Spanish Inquisition, the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, and the history of the Waldenses are a few examples.

1. Daniel 7:25, “He would think to change times and laws.” Again let’s quote from the Catholic Dictionary article under THE POPE: “The Pope is of so great authority and power that he can modify, change, or interpret even divine laws. The Pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man, but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing his sheep.” In the CONVERTS CATECHISM OF CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, page 49, we find that God’s law has been changed. Exodus 20 contains God’s laws. However, the CONVERT’S CATECHISM law has omitted the SECOND COMMANDMENT and split the tenth in two. No other power on earth has done this

1. Daniel 7: 25, It would rule 1260 years. This is a most dramatic prophecy! Beginning in 538 A.D. Papal Rome finally destroyed the Ostrogoths. Emperor Justinian gave the kingdom over to the Bishop of Rome that year. Add 1260 years to that and you come to 1798. The year of the French Revolution. In 1798 Napoleon’s armies overthrew the Papal power, confiscated all the property of the kingdom, declared a republic, and took the Pope off the throne where in France he died in exile. Exactly 1260 years as prophesied!

 

[adventistnomore]

And now, my general response:

Adventists believe that the papacy truly rose to power from 538-1798. (after the fall of Rome in 476) I would ask the pastor: in what way did the papacy “arise” after 476, in 538? No Adventist has ever seriously considered that question.

Did it rise as a political power?

The truth is, the pope was a major political figure long before 476 (when the last Western Emporer had fallen). The popes were given a place in the Imperial court since Consantine’s day (CE 313). Note Pope Leo the Great’s instrumentalities in defending Rome against Atilla by diplomacy (St. Leo died in 461). And in terms of temporal power (he formation of the papal states), the pope was given none until the 9th century. The date 538 (the defeat of the last of the three “horns”) is extremely suspect because the bishop of Rome gained no temporal power from the victory of Justinian, and would not wield any for centuries afterwards. Likewise, Adventist theologian Samuele Bacchiochi has raised some other serious doubts regarding this date:

“Justinian’s triumph over the Ostrogoths (538) in Italy was short lived. First, because under their new leader, Totila, the Ostrogoths quickly recaptured most of their lost territories. [Though, their power was terminally crippled.] Second, because three years after Justinian’s death in 565, another Germanic people, the Lombards, invaded the Italian peninsula and weakened the Papal power.”

Did it rise as a system of false religion?

Likewise, it only takes a casual glance through the ante-Nicene fathers to realize that if the Catholic faith had truly been “adulterated,” it had been so for centuries. (Sunday worship is widespread in the second century; absolution had been granted by priests for centuries [a doctrine that was an alleged “blasphemy”, the Eucharist was considered a sacrifice for centuries, etc.) Challenge the pastor to claim which new doctrines arose after 538. In truth, there is NO new doctrine after 476. Papal primacy had been declared by Nicaea (c. 325). Other stronger claims for papal authrority also predate 538. Gelasius is the first pope to use the title “Vicar of Christ” in 492 (which Adventists consider blasphemy. Other papal claims had been made long before 538:

““Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).”

What changed after 538??? In fact, Papal infallibility was dogmatically proclaimed in the 1870s, after the terminal date of 1798. So what changed after 538?

 

[adventistnomore]

…Continued

That for me is the key question. But let’s address the arguments one by one:

1, 2. As we said before, the papacy traces its origins to apostolic times, and grew in power throughout many centuries. The papacy didnt arise AFTER 476 among the 10 little horns. The papacy SURVIVED the fall of the roman empire, an empire that had sponsored a STATE CHURCH. After the fall of Rome, The Roman catholic church attempted to preserve the law and order of the fallen empire for centuries afterwards.The church continued to wield (and by the necessity of the times expanded) its authority over society it had before, though it had lost the political structure that had at one time supported it.

BUT NOTE: Its power had been established before 476. It PREDATES the other 10 horns.

1. The phrase “little horn” certainly assumes that the power in question had humble origins. Now, no doubt the temporal authority/territory of the Papacy grew after 538, so you may concede this point. But, of course, Islam had humble origins too, as did many other powers. One may wonder what world power did NOT have humble origins.

P.S. Claims that the Vatican is the smallest state in the world are silly. The ancient Papal states were LARGE (covering a third of Italy). The modern boundaries of the Vatican were determined in 1929.

1. The defeat of the Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths was not done by Papal hands of course, but by the armies of the Eastern ROMAN EMPEROR Justinian. Only the Western Roman Empire fell in 476, the Eastern half survived. In fact, it is the (Eastern) Roman Empire that is still fighting battles against the “10 horns” in 476, which raises additional questions about the simplistic Adventist view of 1) Roman Empire disappears 2) 10 horns arise 3) Little horn over takes them. Rather, 1) Part of the Roman Empire dissappears 2) 10 horns move in 3) The rest of the Roman Empire fights them off for a short while to defend the city of Rome, but later loses those lands once and for all.

Again, the pope gained no territory (and would not for centuries), and no lasting victory was achieved. There is no “conquest” for the papacy, and only a short-lived one for the real power operating: the Roman Empire. Still, one can concede that those 3 kingdoms pretty much dissappear off the map in the 6th century.

1. Every kingdom has a man at its head usually, lol…

Still, Adventists tend to move from the literal to the symbolic much to quickly. There is a larger prophetic imagery at work in the passage however (“eyes like a man”), but no time to speculate on the meaning of that phrase here.

1. This is where I cannot understand Adventist logic most. Alright… Dan. 7:24 says the little horn is “different/diverse” from the other horns. They automatically interpret this to mean that the Papacy is a uniquely religious power as opposed to a secular power. My two cents:

a. The fourth beast (interpreted as the Roman Empire) is also called “different/diverse” in 7:19. Does that make the Roman Empire a uniquely religious power led by a religious leader? No.

b. All kingdoms in the ancient world exercised authority in religious matters (persecution of religious minorities, for example). The Roman Empire was a christian power enforcing christian laws by 476, and pagan laws before 314. This is not CLEARLY a reference to the papacy (and again, saying that it was different because it was a religious power is an assumption/interpretation).

 

[adventistnomore]

7)The “blasphemy” charge says that catholic references to the pope being the visible representative of christ on earth (petrine primacy and succession) and the church’s power to forgive sins (sacramental absolution) are assaults upon God.

As I mentioned before, these teachings had been established centuries before.

However, the validity of the Adventist argument relies upon Adventist theological assumptions. As a Catholic, I believe we have a clear scriptural foundation for both doctrines, after all - the verse adventists use to prove that the claim to fogrvie men’s sins is blasphemy (Matt. 9:2-3) is followed byt he verse that says " When the crowd saw this [Christ’s healing and forgive men’s sins], they were filled with awe; and they praised God, ** who had given such authority to men. **" (Matthew 9:8), foreshadowing john 20 (and james 5) and the bestowal of the special charism of reconciliaition to the apostles. The doctrine of the papacy as the representative of Jesus Christ follows from the doctrine of papal primacy. (A discussion we can’t enter into here). The point is: the claim that the Catholic Church is blaspheming requires an Adventist theology to support it. Defend the sacrament of Reconciliation instead of letting your pastor friend get away with such assumptions.

1. Everyone persecutes… the church (or better, the state) dealt with heretics… but there is nothing distinctly catholic here, though they can use it if they want, we’re already proving them wrong. Of course, this argument assumes that the heretics were “the saints of the most high.” (A blatant asumption).

P.S. I attend an Adventist University as you recall. Maybe your pastor friend should know that my history professors (one of which is a VERY conservative Adventist in terms of historical intepretation) believe the 50 million number is an incredible (and false) number. He places total deaths at the hands of inquisitors at about 10,000. The other teacher has an even lower figure. Protestant polemicists in past centuries created those astronomical figures, which modern scholarship all but reject. Usually when I mention this to other Adventists 1) They concede these farrrrrr lower numbers but not this argument 2) Lock themselves into a conspiracy theory about Jesuits tampering with these figures (ugh) or 3) Claim that there is more evidence than will ever be discovered (what Ellen White claims, a bluff if anything).

1. The changing of times and laws is taken to be the differnet catholic different numbering of the ten commandments. This argument is horrific. Jews number the 10 commandments in still a third way, and also combine the commandments against worshipping a false god and worshipping idols into a single commandment. (And they don’t venerate icons). The truth is, there are 14 positive statements in the 10 commandments, and their exact breakdown into 10 is difficult to ascertain. Adventists go by the Reformed (originally, Eastern Orthodox) numbering. Perhaps they should realize that icon veneration is far more important and public in Eastern Churches.

The omission of the piece of the commandment against idolatry in Catholic Catachisms occurs because, like Jews, Catholics assume that not worshipping false gods already includes the idea of not worshipping idols. When sumamrizing the commandments for Catechial use, the Church used short sentences: “Do not take the Lord’s Name in Vain, Honor you Father and Mother, etc.” to make the learning process easier. Hence, the longer version of the commandments, while present in the Scriptures, are left out of the old, short catechisms for dicactic purposes.

It’s funny… whenever I have my Catholic Bible with me at school, my innocent Adventists friends look through it. After discovering the extra deuterocanonical books, they also turn to Ex 20 and are SHOCKED to find the commandments written exactly as in their Bibles. So much for Catholics “removing/altering the commandments.”

The change of the sabbath is an issue too largew to discuss here.

1. The supposed 1260 years of power for the papacy raise the same questions I asked regarding the 538 date.

1798 represented only another episode of the pope being captured by an army… the power of the church had declined centuries before (reformation, rise of nationalism), and the Papal states werent dissolved until the 1870s (by Italian nationalists), decades after 1798. Papal infallibility and the Marian doctrines were proclaimed after 1798. Again, both dates, so foundational to this specific 1,260 year puzzle are arbitrary.

 

[adventistnomore]

There is actually much more to say… but I’ve said way too much for one thread, lol.

Start off with these objections, and as questions arise, I and the other former Adventists will be glad to help you answer them. May God be with you, and bring that pastor into the Catholic Church while you’re at it, hehe

Yours in Christ,

• Hugo

 

[Stephen_Korsman]

adventistnomore:

There is actually much more to say… but I’ve said way too much for one thread, lol.

Start off with these objections, and as questions arise, I and the other former Adventists will be glad to help you answer them. May God be with you, and bring that pastor into the Catholic Church while you’re at it, hehe

Yours in Christ,

• Hugo

Thanks for that lengthy review! At some point I want to improve on my answer to the little horn theory on my website, I just don’t have the time these days. Your answers help a lot for ideas to show people when they ask.

God bless,
Stephen

 

[Montie_Claunch]

Hello,…agian. thanks for all the help so but the blasphemy section of the onslaught is a little deeper. He states that we Worship Mary. The whole thing is like this.God is and must be submisive to Mary It is only through Mary (and the worship of her) that we may obtain salvation It is only though Mary (adoration) that we honor and ador God Our only Hope lay in Mary and about a half dozen other things similar to that. Now I know that this one of the more idiotic things I have but, me telling him this in the simple format of “That is supid.” avails nothing, do any of you know anyathourative quotes I could use to defenitively prove to this pastor that this is not the Case? Thanks and God bless.

 

[Gratias_Grace]

Montie Claunch:

Dear Freinds,

I need help trying to tell some Seventh-Day Adventist that we are not the Anti-Christ as Ellen White says.

Hey Montie Claunch!

My experience is that to discuss with Seven Day Adventists is almost useless. They don’t listen!! Since they don’t listen they arn’t able to correct their wrong opinions about us. If you try to talk to them and find out that you can’t make them understand , don’t feel sorry for not being able to do the nearly impossible. Try to pray for them inststead

adventistnomore:

There is actually much more to say… but I’ve said way too much for one thread, lol.

Start off with these objections, and as questions arise, I and the other former Adventists will be glad to help you answer them. May God be with you, and bring that pastor into the Catholic Church while you’re at it, hehe

Yours in Christ,

• Hugo

THANK YOU, HUGO!

This is the best I have ever read about how to answer Seven Day Adventists. I will go through all of this to think it more over a day when I have better time.

Once one of them (a SDA) talked so negatively about the catholic church that I got really mad at him. The next day I had to go to confession to be forgiven for the sin of letting my anger out on the Seven Day Adventist. (The SDA pushed me into confession that he thought was blasphemy) LOL (But I was sorry, and of course I didn’t tell him about my trip to the priest for forgivness. … We are to love our neigbors even if they attac us).

Here is a link to a former ortodox catholic, (i think). Since you are in a prosess of trying to find out if it is the ortodox or the roman catholic church you want to join , may be James Likoudis webbage can help you a bit further:
credo.stormloader.com/jlindex.htm

 

[adventistnomore]

Thanks for the link Gratias Grace…

Actually, my decision has already been made:

** CATHOLIC, DEFINITELY **

It took 2 years of searching, praying, and studying… but I have made my first confession in the Catholic Church. Last week, I (sadly) asked my Adventist church to remove me from church membership, one of the most difficult decisions I’ve had to make. (My church was a family to me). Nonetheless, I entrust my decision to Christ, and I feel the love of all my brohers and sisters in the mystical body of Christ inspiring me to move on.

Thank you to everyone on this forum who has helped me along this journey. Pray for me as I decide between the Latin and Byzantine rites, and as I discern my possible call to the priesthood.

P.S. I looked over my post, and there are MANY more intricacies & counter-arguments that could be dealt with by serious Adventist theologians. (Adventist scholarship is far more impressive than most Christians believe… my journey has been complicated becaue of my intimate knowledge with these arguments) I submit my work from last night to emphasize apparent weaknesses at first glance, but there are much trickier issues involved. This is pushing me to eventually write a more substatial treatment of the issue, but school starts in 2 weeks.

 

[RyanL]

adventistnomore:

…This is pushing me to eventually write a more substatial treatment of the issue, but school starts in 2 weeks.

KEEP YOUR NOTES!! Get an imprimature, then publish!! We need more of this!

Well done, good and faithful servant,

RyanL

 

[adventistnomore]

Montie Claunch:

He states that we Worship Mary. The whole thing is like this.God is and must be submisive to Mary It is only through Mary (and the worship of her) that we may obtain salvation It is only though Mary (adoration) that we honor and adore God Our only Hope lay in Mary and about a half dozen other things similar to that. Now I know that this one of the more idiotic things I have but, me telling him this in the simple format of “That is supid.” avails nothing, do any of you know anyathourative quotes I could use to defenitively prove to this pastor that this is not the Case? Thanks and God bless.

Make him prove these wild claims… there is no reason why you must defend yourselfagainst untrue charges if he won;t(or can;t) demonstrate their truth. Challenge him to. The best offense is a good defense.

Make sure that he provide them from authoritative statements ** from the ordinary/extroardinary Teaching Magesterium fo the Church. (i.e. council declarations, papal proclamations, catechisms) ** For example… several Catholic devotional prayers include references to Mary as our “only hope,” but they are using flowerly language (much like calling one’s spouse “my one true love” or “the love of my life.”) These prayers often express deep desperation, helplessness, and an overhwlming sense of unworthiness. But they are private devotional prayers… They are MOST CERTAINLY NOT theological statements, and Catholcs should reconsider their widespread use if they raise mistaken views of Catholic theology.

In Catholic theology, Christ is our ONLY Redeemer. He, truly, is the only hope for humanity. Mary is “co-redemptix” in that she “co”-operated with the Redeemer. She allowed Christ to recieve his humanity from her (passively effecting the Incarnation), brought the Redeemer into the world, and raised Him in the love and fear of God. Though Christ’s sufferings and death upon the cross ALONE brought salvation to the whole world, Mary also suffered with Her Son… agonizing intensely as He suffered upon the cross, and thus, particpated in His (redemptive) suffering. She prays for us, asking that we would recieve ALL the graces won for us by the Son she brought into the world (“mediatrix of all graces”). As Eve’s ambition and urgings prepared Adam for His catastrophic fall, Mary’s humility and prayers open the door for Christ to bring salvtion to the whole world.

We LOVE MARY! And she is worthy of praise. As the Israelites celebrated their victory in Judges 5 by praising Deborah and Jael (v. 24: Jael is called “blessed among women”), the Church, celebrating the Redemption of all mankind (the greatest victory of all), EXUDES with praise and joy for the woman whose humility helped make it a reality. If your pastor friend has a problem praising the saints whom God used to achieve His victories… send Him to Joshua 6. We venerate – no better, we CELEBRATE MARY eternally.

“Blessed are you among women and blessed is the Fruit of yur womb! But who am I that the MOTHER OF MY LORD!!! should come to ME?” (Luke 1:42-23)

 

[Gratias_Grace]

adventistnomore:

Thanks for the link Gratias Grace…

Actually, my decision has already been made:

** CATHOLIC, DEFINITELY **

It took 2 years of searching, praying, and studying… but I have made my first confession in the Catholic Church. Last week, I (sadly) asked my Adventist church to remove me from church membership, one of the most difficult decisions I’ve had to make. (My church was a family to me).

CONGRATULATION adventistnomore!

I have prayed for you!

I admire you for your decision! I converted form lutheranism and know that the prosess isn’t easy. To convert from SDA must be much more difficult because you have been thought all that stuff about the Whore of Babylon and so on.

To say good bye is never easy, but as Jesus said: " … and who are my brethren? And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Mt 12:48-50).

I feel a deep respect for what you have done and I hope that God will strengthen you in every situation and that he will help you get real friends in the Catholic Church, helpers on the way to heaven :bible1: !

I send my greetings with this simple song, “How Great Thou Art”,
that I love very much because in its simplicity it makes us remember that our sufferings (when we sometimes suffer as a part of beieng christians) are so small compared to HIS! I learned it in my lutheran school as a child, but there is nothing in this song that catholics can’t use too (Don’t forget to listen to the melody after reading the verses. The melody is for one verse and the refrain):

ingeb.org/spiritua/howgreat.html

God bless!

 

[Montie_Claunch]

When did the Papal states come into being?