In my first posting I tried to broadly cover the main differences between Seventh-day Adventism and Roman Catholicism. In your response you have responded to these differences in two ways. In come cases you have agreed there is a difference, but articulated the difference in your own way. In other cases you have queried whether the differences are genuine and asked whether perhaps on these points we agree.

In this my second posting I have decided to respond to your replies. At some point we will probably find it better to zoom in on one subject at a time as you suggest, but for now I would like to continue at this broader level.

> > The authority of the Roman Catholic Church exists in the form of a > > bureaucratic structure, with the Pope at the top and the pyramid of power > > beneath him.

> I believe that this is the structure set up in the Bible. I see the Bible > as showing us that Peter was the leader, with James and John and Paul > below him (perhaps not so much Paul, who was probably just more > charismatic and thus of more effect) and the rest of the Apostles, with > the bishops below them, the priests (the Greek word is presbyteros > from which "priest" is derived) and then the deacons, and then the > laity. Jesus gave teaching authority to the Church, particularly the > Apostles. Later this authority was held by the bishops (actually > the Apostles were bishops, but we like to distinguish the rank.) > > Jesus gave the leaders of the Church the authority to preach, and this is > what the Bible demonstrates that they had.

In John 17:20-21 we read:
"I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you"

The church split in two, between the priestly class and the laity, does not conform to Jesus' wish that his people be one. We can see from Jesus' example that far from joining the religious hierarchy and reinforcing this division, he opposed it. Luke 18:9-14 tells us about the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. The Pharisee thanked God that he was not like other men. Is the conclusion of this parable that we thank God that we are not like the Pharisee? To reinforce this distinction between the religious hierarchy and the laity is not in conformity with the message of Jesus.

Jesus did not add to our religious laws - he interpreted them in a way which broke down the barriers between the religious and irreligious, those inside and outside the law.

"We played the flute for you,
and you did not dance;
we sang a dirge,
and you did not cry" (Luke 7:32)

The message of Jesus was not understood by the religious hierarchy of his time. The human need to create a religion means the message of Jesus is continually trying to be turned into a religion, a move continually opposed by those with the Spirit of Jesus (see Rev 2-3).

Paul attacked the idea of creating a special closed group of "apostles" - another religious hierarchy - by taking the principle of separation and turning it on its head. If those to whom the risen Christ had appeared are apostles, the Paul too was an apostle, for Christ had appeared to him! So the closed group is opened again by Paul - for now anyone Christ appears to can join this "hierarchy", so undermining it as a power-concept.

Paul also attacks the closed religious hierarchy on the basis of belief. If "an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned" (Gal 1:8). Indeed Paul is even able to call the original apostles "false apostles" (1 Cor 11:13) on this basis. So if an apostle, priest or even an angel teaches what you know to be false doctrine do not listen to them (see also 1 Cor 11:1-15). If this is the case, how can a religious hierarchy be sustained?

1 Peter 2:5,9 reads:
"You also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ... But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God"

So all believers are priests. All God's people are not just a priesthood, but a royal priesthood. Humanly created religion creates a priesthood who provide access to God, but Jesus brings God directly to the believer, without the need for a priest to mediate. The book of Hebrews explains that Jesus is our priest ("we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens" Heb 4:14), so again we have no need of a human priest. Rev 12:1-6 reminds us that Christ is married to his Church, but that God's people are constantly being tempted to commit "adultery" by turning from Christ. We should not commit adultery by turning to earthly priests, nor human tradition, nor human religion, for these are all idols.

The idea that Jesus gave authority to the Church of course comes from Peter's confession to Jesus (Matt 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-27). I shall not comment on the contributions made by Bible scholars on the variations between these gospel accounts, nor on the fact that most historians regard James, not Peter, as the leader of the Jerusalem church. Rather I shall focus on the meaning of the Jesus' reply to Peter's confession:

The key phrase occurs in Matt 16:17-19.
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind in earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The phrase "I tell you that you are Peter" has a footnote in the NIV explaining that Peter means "rock", hence the change of name. This text has of course been used to support the claims that (a) Jesus established the institution of a Church, (b) he made Peter the head of the Church, and (c) the Church itself had power to grant salvation.

I shall show that this is certainly not the meaning of this text.

The first part of Jesus sentence points us to a revelation granted Peter, "this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven".

This phrase points us back to the prophets, "this vision of Obadiah" (Ob 1), "the vision of Nahum" (Nah 1:1), "write down the revelation" (Hab 2:2), "the vision I had seen" (Ez 11:24), "I, Daniel was the only one who saw the vision" (Dan 10:7). So Peter has been granted a revelation similar to that revealed to the prophets. Indeed, Jesus' phrase "not revealed to you by man" is very close to the phrase used in Daniel 10:7 "I, Daniel, was the only one who saw the vision". So Peter has been granted a prophetic revelation by God.

Jesus then introduces the concept of the rock: "And I tell you that you are Peter (rock), and on this rock..". The rock is an important concept in the prophets, Daniel 2 31:35 reads:

"You looked, O king, and there before you stood a large statue - an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were broken to pieces at the same time and became like chaff on a threshing-floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth"

Later in the chapter the meaning of the rock is explained (Dan 2:44-45):

"In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure for ever. This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands - a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces."

So Peter has a vision "not revealed to you by man" and is identified by Jesus as a "rock" which, if our link with Daniel is correct, was not cut "by human hands". How certain can we be that Jesus had this rock from Daniel in mind? There are a number of important indicators that Jesus understood his times as being described by Daniel. In Matt 24:15-16 Jesus says "so when you see standing in the holy place the abomination of desolation, spoken of in the prophet Daniel - let the reader understand - then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains". Perhaps even more important is the symbol of the harvest used in Daniel 2, when the nations of earth "became like chaff on a threshing-floor in the summer" (Dan 2:35), for this symbol is constantly used by Jesus to describe his mission ("the harvest is plentiful but the workers are few" Matt 9:37 etc).

Jesus' following phrase echo's Daniel:

"on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it" (Matt 16:18)

"the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people" (Dan 2:44)

This symbol of the rock is not unique to Daniel. In the prophetic part of Deuteronomy, chapter 32 the Song of Moses, the symbol of the rock is used to identify God:

"he abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Saviour" (Deut 32:15)

"You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth" (Deut 32:18)

"unless their Rock had sold them, unless the LORD had given them up? For their rock is not like our Rock" (Deut 32:30-31)

Deut 32 is an extraordinarily important chapter as it has God speaking directly to his people. The whole chapter is about God's new kingdom and judgement, again linking in with Jesus' teaching about the rock and the coming kingdom.

The next part of the text in Matthew we are looking at concerns the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus says "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven".

There are a number of keys mentioned in the Bible. The key of David (Is 22:22, Rev 3:7), the key to the bottomless pit (Rev 9:1, Rev 20:1), the keys to death and Hades (Rev 1:18). How does Jesus' "keys of the kingdom of heaven" relate to these other keys?

The key of David sounds very similar to the keys Jesus mentioned: "I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no-one can shut and what he shuts no-one can open" (Is 22:22)

Compare this with the text of Matt 16:
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind in earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

This key of David appears in the Book of Revelation:
"These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens, no-one can shut; and what he shuts, no-one can open" (Rev 3:7)

So we have put this text from Matthew into the context of Bible prophecy and discovered that this vision given to Simon (Peter = rock) shows the coming kingdom of God. Yet how can Simon Peter hold such an important position? This new name Jesus has given him appears to make him not the leader of the Church, but into some divine Saviour figure. How can Peter be this Rock, identified with God in the Song of Moses, and with the coming kingdom in Daniel? How can he have the keys of the kingdom, the key of David? The answer lies as we continue reading about the kingdom in Revelation.

"Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name" (Rev 3:12)

"To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it" (Rev 2:17)

So Jesus has given to Simon a new name, Peter=Rock. But this new name for Peter only symbolises the new name all believers will be given, and as part of this new name, the new power and authority given to all believers.

Far from establishing a hierarchical human institution of the Church, Matt 16:13-20 reaffirms Jesus' message that believers will be directly joined up in the kingdom of God, full of his Spirit, one with Jesus. Priests who control access to God are abolished in the Kingdom of Jesus.

> > For Adventism however God does not direct his people via an > > institution but directly through the inspired voice of prophecy. For SDA > >God is active and alive, directing, leading and instructing through the >> "more sure word of prophecy" (2 Peter 1:19). >

> So it is with Catholicism - we don't believe differently. If you mean > prophecy as in interpretation of Revelation and Daniel to determine the > date of the coming of Christ, then we disagree, but if you mean prophecy > as in the biblical definiton - the preaching of repentance - then we > believe the same thing. >

I mean neither of your interpretations of prophecy. Of course the prophets are concerned with the future - read from Isaiah to Malachi if you think otherwise. Prophecy is more than preaching of repentance. 1 Cor 14 makes clear that prophecy is a spiritual gift, an ecstatic message from God to his people.

In 1 Sam 10:10 we read:
"When they arrived at Gibeah, a procession of prophets met him; the Spirit of God came upon him in power, and he joined in their prophesying."

As we have seen from the quotes above, prophets have revelations and visions from God ("the vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw" (Is 1:1), "the word of the LORD came to me..." (Jer 1:4), "the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God" (Ez 1:1) etc etc). Clearly prophecy in the Bible is neither interpretation nor preaching of repentance, but the announcement of a direct revelation from God. This gift of the Spirit is how God in scripture communicates with his people, and typically runs counter to an established religion - God speaks through prophets, not priests. Jesus takes a title of Ezekiel the prophet, "son of man", and in Ephesians we read that "you are... members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ himself as the chief cornerstone" (Eph 2:19-20). So the foundation of God's people are apostles and prophets, not priests and bishops. As we know, "apostles" have had supernatural revelations of the risen Christ, while prophets have had visions, words and revelations from God. God's people are communicated to directly by God, not via a human religion, not via a Church institution, not via priests, bishops or popes.

"where there is no vision the people perish" (Prov 29:18)
"surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7)
"above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1:20)

The human institution of the Church seeks to replace this spontaneous, direct communication between God and his people with a hierarchy where the laity are dependant upon the clergy for access to God. Seventh-day Adventism seeks to return to the natural, direct link between God and his people, where God speaks through supernatural prophecy and revelation. Roman Catholicism seeks to reduce and limit such gifts to the fringes, maintaining power and authority within formal religious institutions. Dostoyevsky in this story of the Grand Inquisitor makes the point that if Jesus returned again the Church would imprison and kill him, just the same as organised religion killed him the first time, because Jesus gives the people the real, living, talking, vision-giving, powerful, active, thrilling God, whereas the

Church only permits them a castrated, impotent God, mute and silent, for the Church wants the people to listen to her, not God.

> > For "where there is no vision, the > > people perish" (Prov 29:18). Adventists don't view E.G White as unique > > but as one of many prophets, indeed at the latter rain (Joel 2:23) >

> Here we differ. Catholics would, if they looked into the topic, view > Ellen White as a false prophet, a fulfilment of the prediction in the > Bible that many in the latter days will fall away, and there will be many false > teachers. We believe that Protestantism was the first step in that > direction, and Adventism is far down the line. >

Let us understand what the Bible means by a "false prophet". Ezekiel chapter 13 goes into great detail concerning false prophets. It is clear for example that they have visions and divinations, so this is not the "prophecy" which only amounts to preaching repentance:

"This is what the Sovereign LORD says: "Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing! Your prophets, O Israel, are like jackals among ruins. You have not gone up to the breaks in the wall to repair it for the house of Israel so that it will stand firm in the battle on the day of the LORD. Their visions are false and their divinations a lie: They say "The LORD declares", when the LORD has not sent them; yet they expect their words to be fulfilled. Have you not seen false visions and uttered lying divinations when you say, "the LORD declares", though I have not spoken?" (Ez 13:3-7)

So clearly these false prophets claim to see visions and hear divinations, yet we learn that the source of these is "their own spirit" (Ex 13:3), false prophets are "those who prophecy out of their own imagination" (Ez 13:2).

Jesus in Matthew also makes clear that false prophets produce miraculous signs:

"For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect - if that were possible" (Matt 24:25)

Yet what of the message given by these false prophets? Ezekiel says:

"Because they lead my people astray, saying "Peace" when there is no peace, and because when a flimsy wall is built, they cover it with whitewash" (Ez 13:10)

Jesus in Matthew says:

"So if anyone tells you, "There he is, out in the desert" do not go out, or "here he is, in the inner rooms" do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man" (Matt 24:27)

Peter writes:

"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Sovereign Lord who brought them - bringing swift destruction upon themselves" (2 Pet 2:1)

It is important to note what constitutes a false prophet. Was Jonah a false prophet? God told him to "go to the great city of Nineveh and preach against it" (Jon 1:2), and the message Jonah had for Nineveh was "forty more days and Nineveh will be destroyed" (Jon 3:4), yet Nineveh was not destroyed.

So what we learn about false prophets is the Spirit of their message is false. It comes from their own imagination, Peter writes "in their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up" (2 Pet 2:3). False prophets say peace when their is no peace, they whitewash a flimsy wall. In other words, a false prophet will not issue a warning when God's people are in danger, or identify where God's people are weak and exposed. False prophets will distract God's people, they will tell them to search in the desert for God, or search in inner rooms - could Jesus be warning here against searching for God in monasteries and churches when he is all around us? False prophets produce fables, heresies, they blaspheme and sin.

Paul writes "but everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort" (1 Cor 14:3), "he who prophecies edifies the church" (1 Cor 14:4).

In other words, there is no great mystery about a false prophet. A false prophet does not have the Spirit of God - they do not know God. Like any separate from God they fail to read the signs of the times, they promise enlightenment and happiness when they are not able to keep this promise. They are like all who claim to have a uniquely special access to God - they deny the revelation of Jesus Christ who has given us all access directly to the Father. They are dangerous to those who follow God, for unlike those with no interest in God, these false prophets claim to not only follow God but to have special secrets about God known to no one else.

So having reviewed what the Bible has to say about false prophets we can see that Ellen White does not meet the criteria specified. With regards to the "prediction" of false prophets in the "latter days" we again see that neither Ellen White, Protestantism nor Adventism preached about going into the desert or inner rooms to find Jesus, but strangely Catholicism does meet this criteria through their laity/clergy distinction.

The term "latter days" appears only a number of times in the Bible:
Ex 24:14, concerning Balaam's Fourth Oracle
De 4:30 concerning idolatry
De 31:29 concerning disaster to come
Job 19:25 the prediction that "my Redeemer" will stand on the earth in the latter days
Jer 23:20 concerning false prophets in the latter days
Jer 30:24 God's anger will continue in the latter days
Jer 48:47 the fortunes of Moab to be restored in the latter days
Jer 49:39 the fortunes of Elam to be restored in the latter days
Ez 38:16 a prophecy against Gog
Dan 2:28 dream of what will happen in the latter days
Dan 10:14 what will happen in the latter days explained by Michael
Hos 3:5 Israel to return to God in the latter days

I am not clear which one of these says that "that many in the latter days will fall away". The chapter on false prophets that includes the phrase is Jer 23, The Righteous Branch, but this concerns false prophets who teach peace when there is no peace.

Alternatively there is the text in 2 Thess 2:3-4:
"Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

This of course doesn't mention false prophets, but is concerned with the man of sin. The important characterisation about the man of sin of course is that he raises himself, a man, to the status of God. This is exactly the criticism we have been making of the Catholic conception of the Church, that it replaces the believer's relationship with God with their relationship with the Church. By definition, if the laity require the priest in order to have access to God, the Church will ultimately replace God and take the place of God. Hence the ultimate idolatory is exactly the Church placing itself between the believer and God.

This raises the point over who has the right to prophecy? For Roman Catholicism how can the clergy listen and be taught by the laity? Yet in the Bible how many of the prophets are also priests? So "Seventh-day Adventism" doesn't exist within an ecclesiastical structure - its meaning lies beyond church structure and organisation, its theology gains meaning in the space where the Church no longer has meaning. For Roman Catholicism the opposite is true. Wherever the Spirit of God is manifest in prophecy, the clergy still retain the right to pass judgement on the message. Thus man places himself higher than God.

> > God shall pour His Spirit out and "your sons and daughters shall > > prophecy" (Joel 2:28). SDA are alive to God doing new things, > > to give new light and lead his people into new truths, such life > > is easily snuffed out by backward-looking bureaucracy. > > > > The Future not the Past > > > > SDA understands the present in the light of the future, not the past. > > Roman Catholicism is bound by tradition and precedent, the weight of her > > past is imminence, she is constantly seeking to understand the present in >> terms of the past. >

> In terms of doctrine this is essential. We cannot ignore the past and > pretend that certain doctrines are not true. Once the Church has decided > on a doctrine, we can't just go and change it as we see fit. The past > determines what the truth is. But I don't think it's accurate that we do > not look to the future. Sure, we don't do that as much as we should, but > there is a clear element in our worship and calendar that looks to the > future. Our main focus, however, appears to be preaching repentance and > living a moral life. I think we have that in common with you. >

We should be informed by the past, we should be educated by the past. No one is saying we should ignore the past. No one is talking about pretending things aren't true. However the past doesn't have authority. The phrase "Once the Church has decided on a doctrine, we can't just go and change it as we see fit" isn't telling us anything about the past, it is telling us about the Catholic view of the Church and the individual. If we change the phrase to "Once the Church has decided on a doctrine, the Church can't just go and change it as it sees fit" we realise this isn't true at all. Quite the contrary: "Once the Church has decided on a doctrine, the Church can then go and change it as it sees fit". The Church has constantly changed and altered its doctrine, no one with any knowledge of the history of the Church could claim otherwise (look at the changes in doctrine through the period of the Crusades concerning the taking up of the cross for example).

The significance of your phrase is the fact that the individual cannot act with authority within the Church, even a prophet from God would not be recognised as having authority.

"Once the Church has decided on a doctrine, God cannot send a prophet and change it as he sees fit". This makes clear the fact that within Roman Catholicism the living, acting God is not permitted. Only the Church can act. The Church is therefore the death of God.

"The past determines what the truth is." - on the contrary, the future determines what the truth is, see Gen 1:1 - Rev 22:21.

"There is a clear element in our worship and calendar that looks to the future" - this is only true in the sense of the Church as a large organisation has to plan logistically for the future. It is not theologically the case that the future as future has any significance or weight.

"Our main focus, however, appears to be preaching repentance and living a moral life. I think we have that in common with you."

I would not agree that "preaching repentance and living a moral life" is the main focus of Seventh-day Adventism, it would be much more like "preparing for the latter rain" if we had to mark a distinctive focus over and beyond the Christian focus on maintaining a living relationship with God. This is important because the concept of the latter rain is stronger than the concept of the SDA Church. It is always assumed that the SDA Church as it appears today will be changed or destroyed at the time of the latter rain. Hence the "Church" for SDAs is always temporary and contingent.

> > SDA on the other hand reject the authority of tradition and > > understand the present from the perspective of the future.

> So the past is unimportant ? I don't see how that can be true. The Bible > itself tells us to follow the traditions - whether oral or written - of > the Apostles - and the historical teaching of Christianity is very important. > If, for instance, the doctrines peculiar to the Mass have been teachings > of all Christians from the first century on down, we cannot just do away > with them because we don't like them, and because the past is unimportant. > Whether we like past doctrines or not, they remain true, simply because > they are based on the Bible and Tradition (actually doctrines are not true > BECAUSE of this, but this is the evidence that they are true.) >

As I have said above, the past is important because we are informed by it. However the past has no authority. God can always do new things.

"But in the days when the seventh angel is about to sound his trumpet, the mystery of God will be accompilished, just as he announced to his servants the prophets" (Rev 10:7)

"I am the LORD; that is my name!
I will not give my glory to another
or praise to idols.
See, the former things have taken place,
and new things I declare;
before they spring into being
I announce them to you." (Is 42:9)
"See, I am doing a new thing!
Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?" (Is 43:19)

From now on I will tell you of new things,
of hidden things unknown to you.
They are created now, not long ago;
you have not heard of them before today.
So you cannot say "Yes, I know of them"
You have neither heard nor understood;
from of old your ear has not been open" (Is 48:7-8)

You will be called by a new name
that the mouth of the LORD will bestow" (Is 62:2)

"Then the LORD will appear over them;
his arrow will flash like lightning.
The sovereign LORD will sound the trumpet;
he will march in the storms of the south,
and the LORD almighty will shield them.
They will destroy and overcome with clingstones.
They will drink and roar as with wine;
they will be full like a bowl
used for sprinkling the corners of the altar.
The LORD their God will save them on that day
as the flock of his people.
They will sparkle in his land like jewels in a crown.
How attractive and beautiful they will be!
Grain will make the young men thrive,
and new wine the young women.
Ask the LORD for rain in the springtime;
it is the LORD who makes the storm clouds.
He gives showers of rain to men,
and plants of the field to everyone...
My anger burns against the shepherds;
and I will punish the leaders;
for the LORD Almighty will care for his flock" (Ze 9:14-10:3)

"I will make a new covenant...
No longer will a man teach his neighbour,
or a man his brother,
saying "Know the LORD",
because they will all know me" (Jer 31:31-34)

Now the significance of these texts is twofold. Firstly, God is announcing
that he is doing a new thing.
This is important, because it undermines the argument that we must be
controlled by the past.

Texts such as:

From now on I will tell you of new things,
of hidden things unknown to you.
They are created now, not long ago;
you have not heard of them before today.
So you cannot say "Yes, I know of them"

totally undermine arguments such as "the Bible itself tells us to follow the traditions" - the Bible is not a conservative book, it is a revolutionary book, God is free to do a new thing. That means his people cannot be bound to a structure that imposes obedience to the past and subjection to a priestly hierarchy.

The second important point is - to what time do these texts refer? Is not the new covenant now? "He has made us competent as ministers of the new covenant" (2 Cor 3:6), "by calling his covenant "new" he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and ageing will soon disappear" (Heb 8:13); "for no matter how many promises God has made they are "Yes" in Christ" (2 Cor1:20). We are already covered by the promises of the new covenant. Our Spirits are already one with Christ, "for in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is head over every power and authority" (Col 2:9-10). When Christ returns, he returns to redeem our bodies, not change the covenant. Our Spirits are already changed, it is our bodies which await redemption, "we eagerly await a Saviour from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so they will be like his glorious body" (Phil 3:20-21), "we have treasure in jars of clay" (2 Cor 4:7), "if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God" (2 Cor 5:1), "we groan, longing to be clothed in our heavenly body" (2 Cor 5:2).

So what God is teaching us here is his promise to directly teach and lead his people. We are now in Christ, "who is head over every power and authority" - including priestly and Church authority.

> > Indeed SDA live in the future and are part of it. SDA is light, with > > wings, able to transcend and reach into the sky. Roman Catholicism, burdened > > with the claims of time remains weighed to the earth. > > > > The Sabbath and the Seal > > > > For Roman Catholicism the Sabbath is one part of the law of God, part of > > a huge pharisaical list of dos and don'ts, rights and wrongs. It is part > > of the religious system of Christianity. > > > > For SDA the Sabbath isn't about religion, or sin or the law. It isn't > > part of this world. The Sabbath is the crown of creation, it existed before > > sin and so was not given in response to it. It marks the seal of God's > > people and so cannot be the minor religious observance as understood by > > Roman Catholicism. >

> As I see it, the Bible and history are clear on the following: the Sabbath > is not necessary for Christians, Gentile Christians never kept the > Sabbath, only Jewish Christians did, and even in biblical times, Sunday > was kept by Christians as their day of worship. Thus Sunday should be the focal > time of worship, not Saturday. >

Gen 2:2-3 says:
"By the Seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done"

What is Jesus' attitude to what God did in the beginning?

Matt 19:4:
"Haven't you read", he replied, "that in the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and he said "for this reason a man leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Jesus compares later laws with how it was in the beginning, reasoning that the beginning takes priority, for "it was not this way from the beginning" (Matt 19:8)

Similarly the gospels make clear the true meaning of the Sabbath, "I will give you rest" (Matt 11:28), as does the rest of the New Testament, in particular Heb 4:1, "since the promise of entering his rest still stands", "there remains then a Sabbath-rest for the people of God" (Heb 4:9).

The idea that "the Sabbath is not necessary for Christians" fails to explain how it is not necessary for Christians to enter his rest. For those who believe salvation comes through obedience to the Church and priesthood, perhaps there is no rest for the people of God, but from the Bible it is clear "there remains a Sabbath-rest for the people of God".

Sabbath is about rest, not worship. To switch to the "day of worship" confuses the issue totally.

> > SDA and Roman Catholicism > > > > For Christians, Jesus came into the world to set us free from sin - he > > came to free us from the world of sin. That world of sin isn't just the > > world of secularism, materialism, sensualism and militarism - life without > > God. > > It is also possible to live in the world of sin and believe in God. The > > Bible tells us that even the devils believe. In the New Testament Jesus' main > > opponents are not atheists but very religious, God-fearing people - the > > Pharisees. Historians tell us the Pharisees were very devout, pious > > people. Yet Jesus was continually in conflict with them - why? Because > > he saw that the freedom that God wants to give us - the life God wants to give > > us - is better than pious religion.

> > But better still is a combination of piety and freedom. I find that best > within the Catholic Church.

This positioning of the Church as mediating between piety and freedom - as if submission/liberation, faith/works/ and piety/freedom are too dangerous for the believer to live within - makes the Church protector of the faithful from the dangers of the Spirit. Yet Jesus came to bring an axe to the tree, not prune it. He said follow me, not come and visit me regularly. The Church promises only compromise. Jesus came to bring liberation, not submission and not some third way between the two. He came to save by faith, not works, and not some third way between the two. He came to bring freedom, not the piety of priests and Pharisees, and certainly not some third way between the two.

"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free" (Gal 5:1)

"Now the Lord is Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." (2 Cor 3:17)

> > > Even devout believers are still in the world of sin, They are still > > making absolute that which is only relative. They are mistaking the > > God of > > religion for the true God, and so are still worshipping idols (see the > > Protestant theologian Paul Tillich for more details of this). Roman Catholics are > > "religious Christians" in perhaps their purest form. For all its piety, > > devotion and love, the system of Roman Catholicism is still part of the > > world of sin because it is still part of the human creation of religion. > > It is man's search for God not God's search for man. >

> The last sentence I disagree with. I believe that Catholicism is the > ultimate revelation of God by God to man. God founded the Catholic Church > while on earth; we have found him, he has revealed himself to us, and we > are his. Yes, we must still bring this to perfection, try to come closer > to God - this is even taught in the Bible. >

Well I believe that Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of God by God to man, God has abolished human religion and man's search for God by revealing himself. The prophets and the New Testament make clear the new covenant is not about the establishment of a new religion, the setting up of a new religious hierarchy, or the creation of a new religious elite. Jesus was the fulfilment of religion by bringing God directly to humanity without going via a priest. This is the meaning of the incarnation. Why does God come directly to humanity, to dwell with us and live with us, only to then go back to the old ways of only making himself available through the priesthood and religion? How can we come closer to God? He has already revealed himself directly to us.

> > The philosopher Jacques Derrida in his recent writings on religion > > distinguishes between the experience of the sacred and holding to a > > religious belief system. SDA live on the side of the experience of the > > sacred - living in the fire of the words of prophecy, living in the > > future, living in the Sabbath, living free from sin. Roman Catholicism > > lives on the side of the religious belief system - the huge religious > > superstructure, still caught in the past: she is living in the law, not > > the Spirit. >

> I disagree. Catholicism must teach moral law in order to help her flock > to stay on the right path - that is the message of the Gospel. We are not > free to sin as we please, and it is the duty of our pastors to help us not > sin. That is why we have such a focus on moral teaching.

The idea that human religion, priests and the religious hierarchy will lead us to God is a temptation the people of God must resist. "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only" (Matt 4:10). The people of God are under constant temptation to serve the priests, to serve the religious establishment, to serve the past and tradition, but the Bible teaches otherwise. The prophets teach against priests who have turned from God "Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things" (Ez 22:26)

Gods punishment of the wicked begins at his sanctuary:
"The LORD called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side and said to him, "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it."

As I listened he said to the others, "follow through the city and kill without showing pity of compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple." (Ez 9:4-6).

"Son of man, prophecy against the Shepherds of Israel... I am against the shepherds and will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths... For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: "I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so I will look after my sheep" (Ez 34:2,10-11).

So the message from the prophets is that God himself will look after his people, "I am against the shepherds and will remove them from tending the flock".

Jesus in the gospels teaches the same message. The religious establishment are the enemies of Jesus, who warns:
"Woe to you, teaches of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are" (Matt 23:15)

The apostles in Jerusalem try to form a new religious establishment, a new hierarchy, but Paul remains true to the message of Jesus that we have direct contact with God, and do not need to go through human mediators, even a new priesthood of "super-apostles" (see 2 Cor 11:1-15). Those who teach otherwise are "false brothers" (Gal 2:4).

So the law is no longer a religious duty interpreted by the clergy or priesthood, but the "command" (Gen 1:3; John 1:1) spoken by God which makes us a new creation, the law in its natural, heavenly state. Obedience to man is ultimately a sin, when it means the denial of our ultimately responsibility towards God. Religion is not sinful when we acknowledge it as a human creation - sacred art, a mystical theatre - it becomes sin when we make it ultimate, when obedience to God is replaced by obedience to man. Obedience to the Church is idolatry, because it makes ultimate that which is temporal.

> As for what you call the experience of the sacred, we do have that - there > are miracles, we have the Eucharist, there are the lives of the saints > to inspire us and > show us more of God, and there are apparitions of Mary and Jesus and > angels who encourage us to pray and repent. These don't fit into the > category of legalism, as far as I can see, and they play an important role > in Catholicism.

The experience of the sacred referred to here is empty of content. It is experience without substance, without language. The miracles, saints and apparitions by definition have no authority. If God spoke to the Church he would have to go through the official channels, as these flickering shadows of the sacred serve only to legitimise the establishment.

At the beginning of Revelation the High Priest in Heaven on the Day of Atonement (Rev 1:12-16) holds the keys of death and Hades. This is our High Priest, "who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man" (Heb 8:1-2). The visions sent by our High Priest to the people of God do not legitimise the Church, or inspire obedience to priests. They are messages that reveal the mystery of God and the seven seals.

> I am not sure how to go further. This is not the sort of discussion I am > used to ... I am used to taking a doctrinal issue and looking at the > historical and biblical evidence for and against it. This, to me, is a > bit vague. However, it's up to you what sort of discussion we have. I'll > leave it here.

The truth of God is not the hermeneutics of tradition. Listening to the Word of God requires faith in the future, not the past.

"May they that love you be like the sun when it rises in its strength" (Jg 5:31).

> > God bless, > Stephen >

Dominus illuminatio mea
The Lord is my enlightening

John
jon.mann@btinternet.com

Stephen Korsman is a Roman Catholic
John Mann is a Seventh-day Adventist

© John Mann 1999
New Perspectives on Seventh-day Adventism
jon.mann@btinternet.com