Catholic and Nazi Seventh-day Adventists

Eugene Shubert

I ran across an interesting article on the Internet this morning about Catholic Seventh-day Adventists (http://www.lightministries.com/SDA/id607.htm). I believe that the theme of the article is true.

God calls us to be loyal to the truth but the Seventh-day Adventist hierarchy has placed itself in God’s stead and all church members, like most of the world, are being directed to submit unquestioning allegiance to a mere human authority that pretends to be religious. The sheeple are happy to comply.

nicsamojluk · follows A. G. Maxwell Joined: 15 Oct 2002 Posts: 21

After reading your comments about the hierarchical system of the Adventist organization, I must confess that I am a little bit confused. Elsewhere, you describe your belief that God is above all, and that even Jesus is subject to him. If God's government in heaven is based on a hierirchical system, why is it wrong for God's church to model what God has in heaven?

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2002 4:01 am Post subject:

nicsamojluk,

You’ve asked a terrific question! However great your question is, I suspect that you misunderstood my point. Don’t you see any difference between the leadership principles of Nazi Germany and the leadership principles of the Kingdom of God?

nicsamojluk · follows A. G. Maxwell Joined: 15 Oct 2002 Posts: 21

Yes, I do. There is a difference as you state. This does not negate the fact that a hierarchical system is not evil in itself, since heaven is based on it, but it becomes evil if misused. I wish, though, that those Adventists who claim to be members of the

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:09 pm Post subject:

I know that the Nazis were really big on eugenics. We are told that many Catholics express a reverential awe for the pope akin to worship. I understand Bob Pickle as saying that there are Seventh-day Adventist abortionists who practice in our hospitals and that mainline Adventists approve. It all boils down to who we worship. All evil hierarchies are essentially the same. Satan is really the one on top.

“They worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, ‘Who is like the beast, and who is able to wage war with him?’ …All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.” (Revelation 13:4-8).

Ross · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 45

Dear Brethren,
If the GC believed in the S.O.P. guiding the Church, they would never have a heirarchical system because they received light at the turn of the century that such things were not to be. It was specified that the GC should not be in one place but in America, Australia, and in Europe. Each was to have a chairman, who could be anyone of the committe at the time. They were told that God did not want the S.D.A. Church to have a Presidential system and, for a time, they obeyed.
Not long afterward, they went back to the Presidential system which Sis. White declared to be a system of popery, and so it has proved to be.
Of course they were not to have a church manual either, and after the idea was vetoed with the confident claim that, "We do not expect the subject to rise again." They little realised that, satanic hosts and their helpers are not that easily deterred, and it did come back to haunt us.
It might be of some assistance if I detail an instance of the confusion such things cause. Just three month ago, at a church business meeting, the Pastor chaired the meeting. That is not his job. He had usurped the role of the Elders. That was their job. Ah. We have no Elders. I do feel that if he was out doing the job specially chosen for him to perform, we would have some Elders. Sadly, I have come out of the Anglican Church, I see us becoming a Seventh-day Anglican Church - complete with the idolatry of candles, and an ignorance of the Word of God, and the minister dictating every move while all the rights and responsibities of the laity are being withdrawn from them. Ultimately on the ground that they do not know how to represent the Church - which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But, as he sought to arrange some matters just prior to the meeting, some one made a minor suggestion and what was his most serious reply? "We can't do that." "The Church manual won't let us!!" According to the S.O.P. his job is to not waste his time chairing board or business meetings. "He is to be out conducting missions." Pigs might fly. My thought at the time was, this man has strained at a Gnat, and swallowed a Camel.
My problem is that I have got too old. In a former life I would have risen to a point of order, and announced that the meeting was invalid because it was not done according to properly constituted Church Authority and therefore illegal. Just let a complaint be made to the relevant authorities and they would find out how illegal. Here, was the highest meeting in the local Church and it was being destroyed.

Sincerely,
Ross
_________________
R.R. Pollock

Dzien Dobry · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 26 May 2002 Posts: 62

Ross,

I'm guessing that your memory of SDA church history isn't as reliable as it once was. I couldn't find the words, 'Presidential system', 'church manual' or the phrase, "We do not expect the subject to rise again" in the EGW database. In general tone however, I suspect that what you're saying is reasonable. Is there a detailed presentation of these issues in any book or internet resource that you know of?

Ross · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 45

Dear Dzien,
You are entirely correct about the absence of the term Presidential System since that is only a formal people speak from me. Nevertheless, it should not be too hard to dig up what Sis. White had to say about it to the GC.
I do not have any understanding of what is contained in the data-base you refer to. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that my memory is all that faulty since I know too much about it which could never arrive by default.

Today is Friday, and my usual church is closed so that no one can hold a church service. This, for the fourth week in a row. We, the hoi poloi have been told to attend the fallen churches instead -they have asked us to come. Next, it will be come on Sunday. They even have a brass band.
Consequently, I will later be ringing one of the independent men asking him to pick me up on Sabbath morning for a ride over the hills to meet with them. He will do that gladly as I am a pianist and they need someone to tickle the ivories.
There are two men I will be meeting with there, and I will ask them if they can dig up the information we want.
Nothing is hidden that shall not be revealed. If not, then I can get it from a wide range of others such as:- Russell Standish in Australia; Evan Sadler, in South N.Z., John Grosbell in America, or Colin Standish in America.
All of those people have a deep interest in these things, and they will be keen to assist.

If you like, you could contact John Grosboll at P.O. Box 782828, Wichita, KS 67278. But in anycase, I will be contacting those people for that information. I know it is right, but not where it is.

The significant thing about the GC striking down the idea of a Church manual was that they gave their reasons. One of which was, such a device might be used in time as a creed. A means by which people might assess whether a man was really a Seventh-day Adventist or not, and use that illegal concept to disfellowship him. Oh yes, they knew what they were on about all right.

Concerning the issue of centralising the GC. That happened in 1901 and in 1903. 1901 was when they received the information that "God did not want a centralised body controlling everything." "The GC was to be split up between America, Australia, and Europe." Each body to have a chairman, not a President. Sis. White was quite hot on kingly power.

There was an attempt to organise something in Europe, but from vague memory the chairman went into apostasy so it was largely abandoned I believe.
The same thing was arranged in Australia, but they didn't do anything, but relied on the GC in America. It might be thought that this really was the trouble when Dr. Ford began to play up. Ultimately, he was sorted out by the Yanks, and just as well too, because the Ausies were useless.
It was the Australians - once a very strong and on-going Church, through which the great apostasies entered the denomination, and athough they where warned by the powerful evangelists then in residence, they did nothing except make everything far worse.
One very serious problem was that, back in 1957 Pastor Figure became President and went to Australia to have a chat with the boys. The Australians had a very childish attitude to such people. Was not this God, coming all this way to see us?? He visited the S.D.A. College and told them that we don't want very spiritual men trained here. We don't want very brainy men. What we want is the man who can meet others on their own terms. We want men who are friendly. Australia and New Zealand have both paid a very heavy price for that unbelievable foolishness, made worse because the teachers at Avondale actually obeyed him. Suddenly, if you were a serious Bible Student, you were unsuitable. If you had done some kind of pseudo training for some other church, you were in big. And if you were a real politician, you were promoted fast.
You know they are not even bad men, just unspiritual and highly political.
But I guess you have to try and live with this nonsense to really believe it.
Anyway, I will definitely seek to find the answers you want. Nothing is hid that shall not be revealed.
Sincerely,
Ross.
_________________
R.R. Pollock

Ross · Seventh-day Adventist Joined: 07 Jan 2004 Posts: 45

Dear Brethren,
I have finally received the documents I need to demonstrate that the church should never have a "church manual." They are as follows:-

In the R&H;, October 8, 1861. "I agree with bro. Loughborough...In Eph. 4:11-13 we read, "And He gave some apostles, and some prophets" etc. Here we have the gifts of the church presented. Now I take the ground that, creeds stand in direct opposition to the gifts. Let us suppose a case: we get up a creed, stating what we shall believe in this point and another just what we shall do in reference to this thing and that and say we will believe the gifts too. But suppose the Lord, through the gifts should give some new light that did not harmonize with our creed: then, if we remain true to to the gifts, it knocks over our creed all at once.
Making a creed is setting stakes, and barring up the way to all future advancement. God put the gifts into the church for a good and great object; but men who have got up their churches, have shut up the way or have marked out a course for the Almighty. They say virtually, that the Lord must not do anything further than what has been marked out in the creed.
A creed and the gifts thus stand in direct opposition to each other. Now what is our position as a people? The Bible is our creed. We reject everything in the form of a human creed.... and in this We are not taking one step, toward becoming babylon. This was in writing by James White.

That is plain enough surely. But our pioneers had much more to say about a church manual.

G.I. Butler, another pioneer declared, that the rejection of the Church Manual was for this reason:-

"It is the unamimous opinion of the committee appointed to consider the Church Manual That it would not be advisable to have a Church Manual. It would seem to many toward the Formation of a creed or a discipline, other than the Bible, something we have always been opposed to as a denomination." Review & Herald, November 9, 1883.

This is very significant, and we recall the words, ""or a discipline other than the Bible,"when we look at what is going on in the shadows of God's church today.

W.W. Prescott, another pioneer, said:- "Those who accept a creed or tradition in place of the Bible have abandoned the protestant platform and have adopted a Roman Catholic principle." - The Protestant Magazine, 1915.

G.I. Butler, although not a prophet, also said:- "It was in taking similar steps that other bodies of Christians first began to lose their simplicity and become formal and spiritually lifeless. Why should we imitate them? There seems to be no logical stopping place, once started upon this road, till this result is reached. The history is before us, we have no desire to follow it. Hence we stop without a Church Manual before we get started... for these and other reasons the Church manualwas rejected. "It is probable that it will never be brought forward again." - Review & Herald, November 27, 1883.

James White again said,
"It is the opinion of the mass of professors of religion that human creeds are indispensable to the maintenance of gospel order... But what is the real condition of the churches with all their creeds to aid them? They are in a condition of little less than perfect confusion ....it is evident, therefore, that human creeds do fail to accomplish the work for which men plead their necessity." - Ellen G. White: The Early Years Volume 1 1827 - 1862 page 288.[

And Loughborough said,
"The first step in apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe." "The second is to use that creed as a test of Fellowship." "The third is to try members by that creed." "The fourth is to denounce as heretics those who do not believe the creed." "And the fifth is to commence persecution against all such." Ellen G. White: "The Early Years Volumne 1 - 1827 - 1862 page 453"

We should now look at what E.G. White had to say about creeds.
Do not carry your creed to the Bible, and read the Scriptures in the light of your creed. If you find that your opinions are opposed to a plain "Thus saith the Lord," or to any command or prohibition He has given, give heed to the Word of God rather than to the sayings of men. Let every controversy or dispute be settled by "It is written." - Review & Herald 13 - August- 1859.

"When God's Word is studied, comprehended, and obeyed, a bright light will be reflected to the world; new truths, received and acted upon will bind us in strong bonds to Jesus. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to His holy Word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible. Instead of wrangling with one another, let us exalt the Lord. Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying, "It is written." "Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, "The Bible our rule of faith and discipline." - Review & Herald, Dec. 15, 1885. (SM volumne 1, page 416.

If this is the stand taken by our forebears so long ago, what has happened? Why is it now we have a Church Manual? Were our pioneers wrong?

No they were not wrong, but something happened. Man began to reject the counsel of the S.O.P. and the church began acting according to its own way of thinking, and the problems started in 1872.

From the fore-going one could be forgiven for thinking that the church manual is a creed. The reason? It is. Look up any dictionary for the word Creed.
Of course now, we have the 27 fundamentals. They also are a creed.
The most deadly creed is the S.D.A. Church manual which not only sets out what the church believes or must believe, but also sets out how the church system is to be run.
Worse, it is set out in rules.

This information is taken from the book "A Hidden Shadow." pages 8 & 9
Sincerely,
Ross
_________________
R.R. Pollock